Robert L. Schulz v. United States, No. 06-2891 (8th Cir. 2007)

Annotate this Case

Court Description: Civil case - Federal tax. District court did not err in denying motion to quash a third-party summons issued to PayPal by the IRS, as the taxpayer failed to show the IRS abused the summons process or lacked good faith.

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 06-2891 ___________ Robert L. Schulz, Appellant, v. United States; Internal Revenue Service, Terry Cox, Appellees. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * ___________ Submitted: September 4, 2007 Filed: September 13, 2007 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Robert Schulz appeals the district court s1 order declining to quash a third-party summons issued to PayPal by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). We affirm. The district court determined that the IRS issued the summons within its authority under 26 U.S.C. ยง 7602, as interpreted in United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58 (1964). According to Powell, to obtain enforcement of summons, the IRS 1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. must show that the investigation will be conducted pursuant to a legitimate purpose, that the inquiry may be relevant to the purpose, that the information sought is not already within the [IRS s] possession, and that the administrative steps required by the [Internal Revenue] Code have been followed. Id. A court, however, may not permit its process to be abused, and [s]uch an abuse would take place if the summons had been issued for an improper purpose, such as to harass the taxpayer or to put pressure on him to settle a collateral dispute, or for any other purpose reflecting on the good faith of the particular investigation. Id. We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in its determinations under Powell, and that Schulz did not meet his burden to show that the IRS abused the summons process or lacked good faith. See United States v. Norwood, 420 F.3d 888, 892 (8th Cir. 2005); United States v. Dynavac, Inc., 6 F.3d 1407, 1414 (9th Cir. 1993). We also hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Schulz s request for an evidentiary hearing. See United States v. Nat l Bank of S.D., 622 F.2d 365, 367 (8th Cir. 1980) (per curiam). A district court has discretionary authority to deny a hearing in summons enforcement proceeding, and an evidentiary hearing is necessary only where substantial deficiencies in summons proceedings are raised by party challenging summons. Id. Finally, we conclude that Schulz s constitutional arguments challenging the IRS s authority to enforce the tax laws are without merit. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-

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.