USA V. JAMES WITT, No. 15-16721 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 27 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner-Appellee, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-16721 D.C. No. 1:15-cv-00418-LJO-SAB MEMORANDUM* JAMES W. WITT, Respondent-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted February 14, 2017** Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. James W. Witt appeals pro se from the district court’s order granting the Internal Revenue Service’s (“IRS”) petition to enforce a summons. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for clear error the district court’s summons-enforcement decision. United States v. Richey, 632 F.3d 559, 563 (9th * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Cir. 2011). We affirm. The district court did not clearly err by granting the petition because the United States met its burden of establishing its prima facie case for enforcement of the IRS summons, and Witt failed to rebut that showing. See United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58 (1964) (setting forth requirements for establishing a prima facie case for enforcement, and explaining that the burden is on the taxpayer to show an abuse of the process); United States v. Dynavac, Inc., 6 F.3d 1407, 1414 (9th Cir. 1993) (once a prima facie case is made a heavy burden is placed on the taxpayer to show an abuse of process or the lack of institutional good faith). We reject as without merit Witt’s contentions that the district court was biased and violated his due process rights. Witt’s motion filed on April 21, 2016, is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 15-16721

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.