CA5: TP filings "incoherent and unintelligible"

[jcolvin2]

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/un ... .0.wpd.pdf

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-50518
Summary Calendar
WILSON D. WATSON; CAROL WATSON,
Plaintiffs - Appellants
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE);
COMMUNITY NATIONAL BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
Defendants - Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas, Midland/Odessa Division
(7:10-CV-1200)
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:* (Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published)

Plaintiff-Appellants challenge the district court’s dismissal of their action
to quash a summons served on them by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”).
In filings that can only be described as incoherent and unintelligible, Plaintiffs claim the summons should be quashed because of a variety of typical tax
protestor arguments. 1

In a careful opinion, the district court generously construed Plaintiffs’ 2
arguments against the summons and analyzed them under the applicable Powell
standard. See Powell v. United States, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58 (1964); Bull D., S.A.,
de C.V. v. United States, 487 F.Supp.2d 722, 776 (W.D. Tex. 2007). In addition
to concluding that “the IRS is a lawfully established agency with the authority
to promulgate rules and regulations and consequently enforce those regulations,”
and “the IRS as an agency has authority to issue administrative summons
through its agents,” it found the Government established its prima facie case for
enforcing a summons by showing “(1) that the IRS investigation was conducted
pursuant to a legitimate purpose; (2) that the investigation ‘may be relevant’ to
that legitimate purpose; (3) that the information sought by the investigation is
not in the IRS’s possession; and (4) that the IRS has complied with the
administrative steps enumerated in the Internal Revenue Code.” (pp. 4-5). It
found nothing in Plaintiffs’ allegations to rebut or overcome this showing. We
agree.

We have considered all of Appellants arguments and find no merit to any
of them.
AFFIRMED

1. Appellants argue that: (1) “as a subject matter jurisdictional prerequisite” “the 1
legislative intent of 26 U.S.C. § 7602 requires that a tax liability be established by evidence
of a taxing statute that requires record keeping or open book records”; (2) the IRS is not a
federal agency and the United States Attorney thus has no authority to represent it; (3) the
IRS lacks authority to levy taxes because the federal collections statute was repealed in the
1950's; (4) “[t]he mere claim of a ‘tax liability’ by a IRS office or agent for the purpose of
obtaining authority for a summons procedure is void for vagueness and a total denial of due
process, and thus far outside of constitutional order,”; (5) “the failure to set forth the taxing
statute under which the IRS claims the tax liability amounts to withholding of exculpatory
evidence and denies the private citizen the right to defence under the U.S. Constitution, 6th
Amendment”; and (6) “[t]he subjecting the plaintiffs/appellants to summary judgment
proceedings, by use strict liability statutes which only apply to a United States granted
business privilege is an operation under color of law, and therefore without Congressional
authorized agency jurisdiction.”

2. The initial ruling was made by the United States Magistrate Judge, whose Report and 2
Recommendation was adopted without reservation by the district court.