TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Bilodeau v. United States

Audrey L. BILODEAU, Et Al. v. UNITED STATES of America, Gerald P. Fournier, Agent, Internal Revenue Service

Bilodeau v. United States, 577 F. Supp. 234 (D.N.H. 1983)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, D. New Hampshire · Federal District Courts
Decided
October 20, 1983
Docket
No. 1:07-adr-00012
Judges
Devine
Citations
577 F. Supp. 23454 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 53301983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12549

Opinion — Devine

DEVINE, Chief Judge.

RECOMMENDATION APPROVED — SO ORDERED:

REPORT, RECOMMENDATION, AND ORDER WILLIAM H. BARRY, Jr., United States Magistrate.

The petitioners bring this motion to quash Internal Revenue Service summonses pursuant to Title 26, United States Code, Section 7609 (b).

On May 26, 1983 Internal Revenue Service agent Fournier issued summonses to five New Hampshire banks and one Massachusetts bank in connection with a tax investigation.

On May 27, 1983, notice of the summonses were mailed to the petitioner by certified mail.

On June 17, 1983, petitioners commenced this proceeding by filing a petition.

Defendants argue that under Title 26, United States Code, Section 7609 (b)(2)(A), petitioners have 20 days from the date of mailing in which to begin a proceeding to Quash the Internal Revenue Service summonses in the district court. The petitioners filed their petition 21 days after the date of mailing. The defendants state that the petitioners filed late and therefore the court is without jurisdiction in this matter. They further argue that the court is without jurisdiction in any event to hear an objection to the summons served on the petitioners’ Massachusetts bank. We agree with both assertions.

Time limitations with regard to starting a proceeding in response to a mailed notice begins the day after the mailing date and includes the last day;

Kollios v. United States, 512 F.2d 1316 (1st Cir. 1975). Counting from May 28, the first day of the period, the last day for petitioners to file was June 16. Thus the petitioners filed one day late and this court is without jurisdiction to hear the matter.

Although the court is reluctant to dismiss the action on the above grounds as the petitioners, proceedings pro se, may have thought that the 20 day period to file began upon receipt of the Internal Revenue notice, the rule on this matter must be strictly construed. Furthermore, even if the court did have jurisdiction in this matter, evidence presented at the hearing indicates no intent by the IRS now or later to use any information gathered from the petitioners’ bank records in a criminal proceeding.

As to the summons served on the Massachusetts bank, this court is without jurisdiction to hear an objection pursuant to Title 26, United States Code, Section 7609 (h) as the bank is not found in this district.

*236 Therefore, the petition to quash Internal Revenue Summons is hereby dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1983: 11985: 31986: 21987: 11989: 11997: 119832026peak 1985 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Dame v. United States643 F. Supp. 533 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)
  2. Cosme v. Internal Revenue Service708 F. Supp. 45 (E.D.N.Y. 1989)
  3. Ponsford v. United States771 F.2d 1305 (9th Cir. 1985)
  4. George M. Stringer v. United States of America, and Ira G. Chambless, Internal Revenue Agent, Internal Revenue Service776 F.2d 274 (11th Cir. 1985)
  5. Riggs v. United States575 F. Supp. 738 (N.D. Ill. 1983)
  6. Pflum v. United States125 F.3d 862 (10th Cir. 1997)

Most recent

  1. Pflum v. United States125 F.3d 862 (10th Cir. 1997)
  2. Cosme v. Internal Revenue Service708 F. Supp. 45 (E.D.N.Y. 1989)
  3. Nardini v. United States676 F. Supp. 389 (D. Mass. 1987)
  4. Hanna v. United States647 F. Supp. 590 (D. Utah 1986)
  5. Dame v. United States643 F. Supp. 533 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)
  6. Williams v. Internal Revenue Service625 F. Supp. 1231 (W.D. Ky. 1985)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Kollios v. United States, 512 F.2d 1316 (1st Cir. 1975) 11

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list