Rose
United States v. Rose
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
David William Rose (“Rose”), President of Eldorado Corporation (“Eldorado”), appeals from a district court order requiring him to comply with an IRS summons issued on March 8, 2004. Rose questions: (1) the validity of the summons’s service on him; (2) the purpose of the summons; and (3) the lack of a pre-enforcement evidentiary hearing.
The certificate of service signed by Revenue Agent George R. Lee (“Agent Lee”) was prima facie evidence that service was properly completed. See 26 U.S.C. § 7603 (a). Rose’s rebuttal evidence — Part C of the summons directed to the “noticee” — would not contain an attestation whether or not the summons were properly filled out and delivered. See Fortney v. United, States, 59 F.3d 117, 118, 121 (9th Cir.1995) (“notice to the taxpayer” portion of summons need not be attested). Thus, Rose’s evidence was insufficient to cast doubt on the accuracy of Agent Lee’s certificate of service.
Agent Lee also asserted, under oath, that the summons was issued for one of the proper statutory purposes. See 26 U.S.C. § 7602 (a) (proper purposes include “ascertaining the correctness of any return” and “determining the liability of any person for…