United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
HOLMES BELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
an action by the United States of America pursuant to 26
U.S.C. §§ 7402(b), 7604(a), to enforce a summons
issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on Respondent
David Morton. The Court issued an order to show cause why the
petition should not be granted, and directed Respondent to
attend a show-cause hearing. Respondent filed a response to
the order and a counterclaim against Petitioner. The Court
held a show-cause hearing on November 9, 2016, before
Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody. Respondent did not appear
for the hearing. On November 28, 2016, Magistrate Judge
Carmody issued a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) recommending that the Court grant the
petition to enforce the summons and dismiss the counterclaim
for lack of jurisdiction. (ECF No. 13.)
filed objections to the R&R (ECF No. 14) that were not
signed. On December 13, 2016, the Court issued an order
conditionally striking the objections unless Respondent
submitted a signature page within 21 days. The following day,
the Court received a letter from Respondent indicating that
he forgot to sign the objections and asking the Court to
accept documents attached to his letter in place of the
original objections. However, the documents attached to the
letter were also unsigned. The Clerk's Office responded
with a letter directing Respondent to return the signature
page that was attached to the Court's order dated
December 13, 2016. (ECF No. 16-1.) More than 21 days have
passed and Respondent has not submitted the requisite
signature page. Accordingly, his objections will be stricken.
they were not stricken, the objections would be rejected
because they are meritless. Respondent asserts, without legal
or factual support, that he “is not, and never was,
engaged in any activity which would bring him within the
purview of the implementing regulations giving 26 U.S.C.
§ 7604 the force and effect of law as applied against
Respondent.” (Objs., ECF No. 14.) Respondent
erroneously asserts that 27 C.F.R. § 70 is the
implementing regulation for 26 U.S.C. § 7604. It is not.
Indeed, no “implementing regulation” is required
to give § 7604 the “force and effect of
law.” Moreover, the relevant regulation for purposes of
this action is 26 C.F.R. § 301.7602-1, which gives the
IRS authority to issue summons pursuant to § 7602.
also claims that the IRS is not part of the federal
government. This patently frivolous argument requires no
response. Respondent further claims that the revenue officer
issuing the summons has refused to document or prove his
authority to “accost” Respondent or to prove his
relationship to the IRS. The officer's affidavit attached
to the petition suffices as proof of his authority.
Accordingly, having received no valid objections to the
R&R, the R&R will be adopted and approved as the
opinion of this Court.
before the Court are: a supplement to Respondent's
counterclaim (ECF No. 17) and Respondent's motion for
injunctive relief (ECF No. 18). In the supplement to his
counterclaim, Respondent asserts that the revenue officer is
harassing Respondent by serving subpoenas on Respondent's
adult children. He also claims that the officer has issued a
levy on an unidentified organization against funds that are
due to Respondent for services rendered, and that Respondent
has effectively been terminated from his job. For the reasons
stated in the R&R, the Court has no jurisdiction over
such claims. Moreover, Respondent does not have standing to
object to subpoenas issued on third parties; he does not
claim a right or privilege with respect to the information
sought from them. See Mann v. Univ. of Cincinatti,
Nos. 95-3195, 95-3292, 1997 WL 280188 (6th Cir. May 27, 1997)
(“[O]rdinarily a party has no standing to seek to quash
a subpoena issued to someone who is not a party to the action
unless the party claims some personal right or privilege with
regard to the documents sought[.]”) (quoting 9A Charles
Alan Wright and Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and
Procedure § 2459 (1995)). Thus, the supplemental
counterclaims will also be dismissed.
motion for injunctive relief is premised on the viability of
his counterclaims and his assertion that the revenue officer
is in “default” to an “obligation under 15
U.S.C. [§] 1692.” (Mot. for Injunctive Relief, ECF
No. 18, PageID.91.) The revenue officer does not have any
obligations under 15 U.S.C. § 1692, because that statute
excludes from its scope “any officer or employee of the
United States . . . to the extent that collecting or
attempting to collect any debt is in the performance of his
official duties[.]” 16 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)(A).
Moreover, for the reasons stated herein and in the R&R,
the counterclaims are meritless. Thus, injunctive relief is
not warranted and the motion for injunctive relief will be
denied. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Respondent's unsigned objections (ECF No. 14) are
FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No.
13) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent's counterclaims (ECF No.
11) and supplemental counterclaim (ECF No. 17) are DISMISSED
for lack of jurisdiction.
FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent's motion for injunctive