U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 1980

United States v. Fahey

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Decided January 9, 1980 · Barrett, Logan, McKay

614 F.2d 690 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Frank Kowalik, Jr., and Karen Kowalik, pro se., M. Carr Ferguson, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Gilbert E. Andrews, Chief, Tax Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington. D. C., Joseph F. Dolan, U. S. Atty., Denver, Colo., for petitioners-appellees.

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision. The 6 that cite it most often are listed here.

United States v. Bank Of California (9th Cir. 1980)
United States v. Bank of California (9th Cir. 1980)
United States v. Hart (District Court, D. North Dakota 1982)
United States v. First National Bank Of The Black Hills (1st Cir. 1980)
United States v. Omohundro (10th Cir. 1980)
United States v. First National Bank (8th Cir. 1980)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM. Before BARRETT, McKAY and LOGAN, Circuit Judges.

*691After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of these appeals. See Ped.R. App.P. 34(a); Tenth Circuit R. 10(e). Appellants’ motion to transfer these cases from Calendar D to Calendar B is denied and the causes are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

These are appeals from orders of the district court directing enforcement of four summonses issued to third parties by the Internal Revenue Service. The taxpayers instructed the third party defendants to disregard the summonses and intervened in the suits.

The taxpayers argue first that the United States government is without authority under the constitution to bring civil actions against citizens, and that the court therefore lacks jurisdiction to enforce these IRS summonses. This argument, though creative, is frivolous.

The taxpayers’ brief also suggests that the IRS is actually achieving criminal ends in this investigation under the guise of civil processes. This contention also lacks merit. The government established a prima facie case that the issuance of these summonses was in furtherance of a valid civil tax determination purpose. The taxpayers offered no proof in contradiction. See United States v. MacKay, 608 F.2d 830, at 834 (10th Cir. 1979).

AFFIRMED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.