1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Case No.: 24cv803 DMS BROTHERS KEEPER MINISTRIES,

11 Petitioner, 12 v. ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S AMENDED MOTION TO QUASH; 13 AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MOTION TO SUMMARILY DENY 15 Defendant. PETITIONER’S MOTION TO QUASH AND ENFORCE IRS

16 SUMMONS

17

18

19 Pending before the Court is Petitioner Brothers Keeper Ministries’ Amended Motion 20 to Quash IRS Summons. (ECF No. 2.) The United States responded by filing a Motion to 21 Dismiss and Summarily Deny Petition to Quash and To Enforce IRS Summons. (ECF No. 22 7.) Petitioner responded to the United States’ motion, (ECF No. 9), the United States 23 replied, (ECF No. 10), and Petitioner filed a “supplement”, (ECF No. 11.) In October 2024 24 the Court issued an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed. (ECF No. 25 15) (noting that only natural persons can proceed pro se and that Petitioner is not 26 represented by an attorney). Petitioner replied to the Court’s order to show cause. (ECF 27 28 1 No. 16.) Explained below, the Court will deny Petitioner’s Motion and grant the United 2 States’ Motion. 3 I. BACKGROUND 4 This matter concerns IRS summons for information regarding Camp Noble Inc. 5 (“CNI”). CNI is a California Corporation and a government contractor that primarily sells 6 equipment to the Department of Defense. (ECF No. 7-1 at 6.) CNI has not filed corporate 7 income tax returns, also known as Form 1120, for several years. (Id.) And so, the IRS, 8 through its Revenue Officer Joseph A. Unger, is investigating the delinquent tax returns 9 and seeking information that will allow it to prepare the delinquent returns for CNI. (Id. at 10 6–7.) 11 For example, since at least November 2023 the IRS has encouraged CNI to file its 12 delinquent tax returns. (Id. at 7.) When that didn’t work it began to request information 13 from third parties as part of its investigation. (Id.) In April 2024, after a few missteps, the 14 IRS issued the summons at the heart of this matter to Wells Fargo. (Id.) The summons 15 asked Wells Fargo to produce account and financial records of all accounts held in CNI’s 16 name from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2022. (Id. at 8.) In addition, the IRS also 17 served a notice of the summons on CNI. (Id.) (citing

(a)). 18 CNI did not file a motion to quash the summons. Instead, Petitioner Brothers Keeper 19 Ministries, which claims to be a church, filed a motion to quash. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner 20 is not a natural person, and is represented by Dean Allen Steeves, who is not a lawyer and 21 characterizes himself as Petitioner’s “authorized delegate.” (Id.) The United States now 22 moves to summarily deny Petitioner’s motion to quash and enforce IRS summons. (ECF 23 No. 7.) 24 II. DISCUSSION 25 The Court will deny Petitioner’s Motion to Quash and grant the United States’ 26 motion to quash and enforce IRS summons for three reasons: (A) Petitioner does not have 27 standing under

to quash the IRS summons; (B) Petitioner has failed to 28 1 comply with Local Civil Rule 83.3(j); and (C) the United States has satisfied the Powell 2 factors and Petitioner has failed to rebut them. 3 A. Petitioner does not have standing to quash the IRS summons. 4 “The IRS may issue a summons pursuant to § 7602 for the purpose of ‘ascertaining 5 the correctness of any return, making a return where none has been made, determining the 6 liability of any person for any internal revenue tax . . . or collecting any such liability.’” 7 Action Recycling Inc. v. United States,

(9th Cir. 2013) (quoting 26

(a)). “If the IRS issues a summons to a third party, the taxpayer is entitled 9 to notice of the summons (subject to the exceptions set forth in § 7609(c)(2)–(3)) and has 10 a right to intervene and to move to quash the summons.” Id. (citing

, 11 7609). “The issue of who gets notice is highly significant because only a person who is 12 entitled to notice may bring a proceeding to quash such a summons.” Viewtech, Inc. v. 13 United States,

(9th Cir. 2011) (citing

(b)(2)(A)), 14 abrogated on other grounds, Polselli v. IRS,

(2023)). 15 The United States argues that Petitioner is not entitled to (and did not receive) notice, 16 and therefore cannot bring a motion to quash IRS summons. (ECF No. 7-1.) Petitioner 17 addresses the government's argument in his opposition, but those arguments confuse the 18 legal issues. (ECF No. 9.) Petitioner and Mr. Steeves are familiar with these legal issues. 19 Steeves v. United States, No. 24-CV-1300-DMS-AHG,

, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 20 Sept. 30, 2024) (dismissing similar action because plaintiff lacked standing to bring motion 21 to quash under

). 22 There, as here, the government is correct—Petitioner does not have standing to bring 23 a motion to quash the IRS summons. CNI was given notice of the at issue summons—not 24 Petitioner. Accordingly, the Court denies Petitioner’s Motion to Quash and grants 25 Defendant's Motion to Deny Petitioner’s Motion to Quash. 26 27 28 1 B. The Court will dismiss the petition for failure to comply with Local Civil Rule 2 83.3(j). 3 Next, the Court notes that Petitioner is not a natural person and is not represented by 4 an attorney permitted to practice. A court may dismiss an action based on a party's failure 5 to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Henderson 6 v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to 7 comply with local rules). The Court warned Petitioner that the lack of representation could 8 lead to dismissal. (ECF No. 6.) Indeed, Local Rule 83.3(j) states: 9 Only natural persons representing their individual interests in propria persona may appear in court without representation by an 10 attorney permitted to practice pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.3. 11 All other parties, including corporations, partnerships and other legal entities, may appear in court only through an attorney 12 permitted to practice pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.3. 13 14 L. Civ. R. 83.3(j) (emphasis added). Parties that are not properly represented will be 15 dismissed. See, e.g., Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2008) (“[i]t 16 is well established that the privilege to represent oneself pro se provided by [28 U.S.C.] § 17 1654 is personal to the litigant and does not extend to other parties or entities.”); C.E. Pope 18 Equity Tr. v. United States,

(9th Cir. 1987) (“Although a non-attorney 19 may appear in propria persona in his own behalf, that privilege is personal to him. He has 20 no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself.”). Petitioner’s response 21 quibbles that it needs no attorney, and that Mr. Steeves may represent it. But those quibbles 22 do not change that Brothers Keeper Ministries is not a natural person. And because it is 23 not a natural person it falls into the category of “all other parties” which must be 24 represented by an attorney.1 Therefore, the Court will also dismiss this case on those 25 grounds. 26

27 1 Moreover, those quibbles do not change the fact that, by representing Petitioner, Mr. Steeves could be engaged in the unauthorized practice of law,

, which is a crime in California. 28 1 C. The United States has satisfied the Powell factors and Petitioner has failed to 2 rebut them. 3 To enforce a summons the United States must present a prima facie case of good 4 faith by showing four factors: (1) the summons was issued for a legitimate purpose, (2) the 5 summoned data may be relevant to that purpose, (3) the information sought is not already 6 in the government’s possession, and (4) the administrative steps required by the Internal 7 Revenue Code for issuance and service have been followed. United States v. Powell, 379

, 57–58 (1964). “The government's burden is a slight one and may be satisfied by 9 a declaration from the investigating agent that the Powell requirements have been met.” 10 Crystal v. United States,

(9th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks and 11 citation omitted). 12 “Once the government has established the Powell elements, ‘those opposing 13 enforcement of a summons . . . bear the burden to disprove the actual existence of a valid 14 civil tax determination or collection purpose by the Service . . . . Without a doubt, this 15 burden is a heavy one.’”

(quoting United States v. Jose,

(9th Cir. 16 1997) (en banc)). To make the required showing, the petitioner “must allege specific facts 17 and evidence to support his allegations of bad faith or improper purpose.”

(quoting 18 Jose,

). Meeting the Powell requirements also defeats a petition to quash. 19 See

at 1143–44. 20 The United States has met its burden. The United States offers the declaration of 21 IRS Revenue Officer Joseph Unger, who attests that the summons was issued for the 22 purpose of enabling the IRS to prepare the Form 1120 returns for CNI for the subject tax 23 years, (Unger Decl. ¶ 10, 14, 16), the summoned documents and information sought may 24 help the IRS prepare the delinquent tax returns, (id. ¶ 7, 18), the summoned documents and 25 information sought are not currently in the possession of the IRS, (id. ¶ 19), and the IRS 26 followed all administrative steps required to issue and serve the summons, (id. ¶ 20). (ECF 27

28 1 No. 7-1 at 13–15.) Unger's declaration addresses all four Powell requirements, and the 2 government has therefore established a prima facie case to enforce the summons. 3 Petitioner has not rebutted the IRS’s prima facie case. It only contests the “legitimate 4 purpose” requirement, arguing that CNI is not required to file a tax return because it is 5 Petitioner’s “integrated auxiliary.” (ECF No. 9 at 1–3) (citing 26 U.S.C. 6033(a)(3)(A)(3)). 6 And that because it is exempt from filing the IRS can have no legitimate purpose to 7 examine its bank records. (Id.) 8 That argument lacks merit for two reasons. First, it lacks factual support. 9 “Integrated auxiliary” has a technical definition. It is an organization that is (i) “[d]escribed 10 both in sections 501(c)(3) and 509(a) (1), (2), or (3)”; (ii) “[a]ffiliated with a church or a 11 convention or association of churches”; and (iii) “[i]nternally supported.

1.6033-2(h)(1)(i)–(iii). Each prong of that definition has more technical requirements. 13 E.g.,

§ 1.6033-2(h)(2)–(4). The Court is skeptical that CNI meets any of these 14 requirements. And because the United States has made its prima facie case Petitioner bears 15 the burden of supporting its argument with facts and evidence. Jose,

16 (“Without a doubt, this burden is a heavy one.”). Petitioner has not presented any evidence 17 that it is an integrated auxiliary. The Court declines to accept Petitioner’s conclusory 18 assertion. 19 Second, it would not make a difference whether CNI is an integrated auxiliary. 20 Petitioner is aware of that as well. Steeves, Tr. of Brother's Keeper Ministries v. IRS, No. 21 20CV978-LAB,

, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2020) (rejecting the same 22 argument), aff'd sub nom. Steeves, Tr. of Brother's Keeper Ministries v. IRS, No. 20-56065, 23

(9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2021); Steeves v. United States, No. 24-CV-1300- 24 DMS-AHG,

, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2024) (rejecting the same 25 argument). The same reasoning applies here. Thus, Petitioner’s argument does not show 26 that the summons was issued for an improper purpose. 27 The government has met its burden to establish a prima facie case of enforcement of 28 summons whereas Petitioner has not met its burden to disprove it. Accordingly, the Court 1 |} grants the government's motion to enforce summons. Because meeting the Powell factors 2 ||also defeats a petition to quash, the Court also denies Petitioner’s Motion to Quash and 3 grants Defendant's Motion to Summarily Deny Petitioner’s Motion to Quash on this 4 || alternative ground. 5 I. CONCLUSION 6 Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Amended Motion to Quash 7 |jand GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Summarily Deny Petitioner’s Motion to Quash and 8 Enforce IRS Summons. All other motions are DENIED. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 ||Dated: January 21, 2025 11 = in ym. LA, Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28