Watson Professional Group, Inc, et al v. USA IRS,, No. 11-50518 (5th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 11-50518 Document: 00511771931 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/29/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED February 29, 2012 No. 11-50518 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk 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:* 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 * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 11-50518 Document: 00511771931 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/29/2012 No. 11-50518 claim the summons should be quashed because of a variety of typical tax protestor arguments.1 In a careful opinion, the district court2 generously construed Plaintiffs 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. 1 Appellants argue that: (1) as a subject matter jurisdictional prerequisite the legislative intent of 26 U.S.C. ยง 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 Recommendation was adopted without reservation by the district court. 2 Case: 11-50518 Document: 00511771931 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/29/2012 No. 11-50518 We have considered all of Appellants arguments and find no merit to any of them. AFFIRMED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.