Notice: Seventh Circuit Rule 53(b)(2) States Unpublished Orders Shall Not Be Cited or Used As Precedent Except to Support a Claim of Res Judicata, Collateral Estoppel or Law of the Case in Any Federal Court Within the Circuit.dennis Runkle and Elknur Family Limited Partnership,petitioners-appellants, v. United States of America, Respondent-appellee, 129 F.3d 1268 (7th Cir. 1997)

ORDER

Dennis Runkle appeals the district court's denial of the Elknur Family Limited Partnership's petitions to quash IRS summonses. He purports to appeal on behalf of Elknur, but as we explain below, a non-attorney may not represent a partnership. We affirm.

The IRS issued summonses to banks in which Runkle had accounts in order to obtain books, records or other data to determine his income tax liability. Runkle and the partnership petitioned in the district court to quash the summonses. The court denied the petition. The court pointed out correctly that because Runkle was not an attorney, he could not represent the partnership. Runkle v. United States, 962 F. Supp. 1112, 1113-14 (N.D. Ind. 1997); see also, Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1654). Moreover, because the partnership did not file its petition to quash within 20 days after the mailing of the notice of the summonses, see 26 U.S.C. § 7609(b) (2), the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the petition. See Faber v. United States, 921 F.2d 1118, 1120 (10th Cir. 1990).

On appeal, Runkle raises one principal argument. He argues that the copies of the IRS summonses lacked attestation clauses as required by 26 U.S.C. § 7603. However, as the district court and other courts have noted, non-attested summonses are enforceable so long as there is no evidence that the absence of an attestation harmed the summoned party. See Mimick v. United States, 952 F.2d 230, 232 (8th Cir. 1991). Because Runkle has not shown that he suffered any harm by receiving non-attested summonses, the summonses are enforceable.

AFFIRMED.