Alphin v. United States

2 Citing briefs

  1. MRI International, Inc. v. United States

    REPLY to Response to 3 MOTION to Dismiss

    Filed July 10, 2013

    “Unless a taxpayer opposing enforcement of a summons makes a ‘substantial preliminary showing’ of an alleged abuse, neither an evidentiary hearing nor limited discovery need be ordered by the district court. United States v. Tiffany Fine Arts, Inc., 718 F.2d 7, 14 (2d Cir. 1983), aff’d sub nom 469 U.S. 310, 324 (1995); see also Fortney, 59 F.3d at 121 (citing Stuckey, 646 F.2d at 1372); Case 2:13-cv-00676-APG-PAL Document 5 Filed 07/10/13 Page 4 of 6 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 United States v. BDO Seidman, 337 F.3d 802, 809 (7th Cir. 2003); Copp v. United States, 968 F.2d 1435, 1438 n.1 (1st Cir. 1992); Alphin v. United States, 809 F.2d 236, 238 (4th Cir. 1987); United States v. Balanced Fin. Mgmt., Inc., 769 F.2d 1440, 1444 (10th Cir. 1985); United States v. Kis, 658 F.2d 526, 539 n.39 (7th Cir. 1981); United States v. Nat’l Bank of S. D., 622 F.2d 365, 367 (8th Cir. 1980). 3.

  2. Watson Professional Group Inc et al v. United States of America (Internal Revenue Service)

    MOTION to Dismiss Petition to Quash

    Filed December 16, 2010

    See e.g., In re Newton, 718 F.2d -4- Case 7:10-cv-00120-RAJ Document 13 Filed 12/16/10 Page 4 of 9 1015, 1019 (11th Cir. 1983); United States v. Dynavac, Inc., 6 F.3d 1407, 1414 (9th Cir. 1993); United States v. Abrahams, 905 F.2d 1276, 1280 (9th Cir. 1990), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Jose, 131 F.3d 1325 (9th Cir. 1997); Alphin v. United States, 809 F.2d 236, 238 (4th Cir. 1987); United States v. Will, 671 F.2d 963, 966 (6th Cir. 1982). Once the United States makes the required showing, the burden shifts to the petitioner to show an abuse of the court’s process in connection with the summons.