U.S. v. Monumental Life Ins. Co.

33 Citing cases

  1. Lyons Trading, LLC v. U.S.

    No. 3:07-mc-13 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 8, 2008)   Cited 2 times

    The Sixth Circuit likewise characterizes summons enforcement proceedings as summary. E.g., United States v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 440 F.3d 729, 736 (6th Cir. 2006) ("Proceedings seeking enforcement of an IRS summons are intended to be summary in nature. . . ."); United States v. Will, 671 F.3d 963, 968 (6th Cir. 1982) ("A proceeding seeking enforcement of an IRS summons is . . . of a summary nature.").

  2. U.S. v. Nissan North America, Inc.

    No. 3:10-0548 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 3, 2011)

    The Court held a hearing on December 30, 2010. For the reasons set forth herein, the Petition To Enforce Internal Revenue Service Summons (Docket No. 1) is GRANTED. Proceedings to enforce an IRS summons are intended to be summary in nature, and defining the permissible scope of the hearing is a decision left to the discretion of the district court. United States v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 440 F.3d 729, 736 (6th Cir. 2006). If the court "concludes that it cannot fairly decide the case on the evidence before it, the court is free to direct such further proceedings as its discretion dictates; conversely, if the evidence is sufficient, no further hearing is necessary." United States v. Will, 671 F.2d 963, 968 (6th Cir. 1982).

  3. Gaetano v. United States

    No. 20-2182 (6th Cir. Jul. 16, 2021)

    The district court had jurisdiction to review the petition to quash under 26 U.S.C. § 7609.We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and must affirm unless the district court's order is clearly erroneous. United States v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 440 F.3d 729, 732 (6th Cir. 2006). "Issues of statutory interpretation, however, are reviewed de novo."

  4. Byers v. United States

    963 F.3d 548 (6th Cir. 2020)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses

    "A district court's order enforcing an IRS summons will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous." United States v. Monumental Life Ins. Co. , 440 F.3d 729, 732 (6th Cir. 2006). Clear error exists if this court is "left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed."

  5. PCA-Corrections, LLC. v. Akron Healthcare LLC

    Case No. 1:20-cv-428 (S.D. Ohio May. 21, 2021)   Cited 3 times

    But they are confidential. United States v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 440 F.3d 729, 734 (6th Cir. 2006). And, when confidential documents, such as tax returns, are at issue, "a subpoena issued to a third party, rather than the defendant, is given careful scrutiny."

  6. U.S. v. Bernhoft

    666 F. Supp. 2d 943 (E.D. Wis. 2009)   Cited 1 times

    The Wyatt court defined overbreadth as "`out of proportion to the ends sought,'" Id. at 302 (quoting United States v. Harrington, 388 F.2d 520, 523 (2d Cir. 1968)), and "`of such sweeping nature and so unrelated to the matter properly under inquiry as to exceed the investigative power,'" Wyatt, 637 F.2d at 302 (quoting United States v. Morton Salt Co., 388 U.S. 632, 652 (1950)). Bernhoft contends that the scope of the summons is overly broad because the summons (1) is addressed to him rather than the Law Firm; (2) lacks time specifications for the requested correspondence; (3) lacks subject-matter specifications for the requested correspondence; and, (4) satisfies the four factors that are indicative of overbreadth as outlined in United States v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 440 F.3d 729, 736-37 (6th Cir. 2006) (Opp'n Pet. to Enforce 7, 8, 10.) Summons Addressed to Bernhoft

  7. Speelman v. U.S.

    Case No. 3:07MC012 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 19, 2007)

    4. The administrative steps required in 26 U.S.C. § 7603 have been followed.See United States v. Monumental Life Insurance Co., 440 F.3d 729, 733 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing in party United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58 (1964)). "This showing may be made by the submission of an affidavit of the agent who issued the summons and who is seeking enforcement.' . . ."

  8. United States v. Blum

    1:22-MC-00056-DAR (N.D. Ohio Jan. 11, 2024)

    “The requisite showing is generally made by the submission of the affidavit of the agent who issued the summons and who is seeking enforcement.” United States v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 440 F.3d 729, 733 (6th Cir. 2006).

  9. United States v. GBX PR LLC

    1:23MC12 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 3, 2023)

    According to the Sixth Circuit, “the question is whether the records requested “might” throw light upon the correctness of a return.” United States v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 440 F.3d 729, 735-36 (6th Cir. 2006) citing Arthur Young, 465 U.S. at 814-15 & n. 11, 104

  10. Zietzke v. United States

    Case No. 19-cv-03761-HSG (SK) (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2020)   Cited 3 times   2 Legal Analyses

    (Dkt. No. 24 at 18-20.) Petitioner argues that information about counter-parties is too far removed from his tax liability and cites two cases: United States v. Monumental Life Ins., Co., 440 F.3d 729 (6th Cir. 2006) (the court found that an IRS request for information regarding third parties was not relevant under the Powell standard); United States v. Coinbase, 2017 WL 5890052 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2017) (request for information from Coinbase about 14,000 accountholder was too broad). The Court finds that those two cases address narrow circumstances that are not applicable here.