Opinion
Case No. 02-CV-2499-H
January 15, 2003
On December 19, 2002, Petitioner Robert M. Scharringhausen filed a Petition to Quash one Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") summons. On January 9, 2003, the United States, pursuant to an order granting its request to shorten time to file a motion to dismiss, filed both its opposition to Mr. Scharringhausen's Petitions and its own motion to dismiss Mr. Scharringhausen's Petition to Quash. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), the court deems this matter to be appropriate for disposition on the submissions. After carefully considering the submissions of the parties, the court GRANTS the United States' motion to dismiss the petition and ORDERS the Petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND
The IRS is examining the tax liabilities of Mr. Scharringhausen for the years 1999 and 2000, and has begun to expand that investigation to include the year 2001. The IRS summons challenged by Mr. Scharringhausen issued to Credomatic of Florida, Inc., a Florida subsidiary of the Costa Rican based Credomatic International Corporation. The petition seeks "[a]n account information, all customer information, and all monthly billing statements that you have in your custody or control for the period January 1, 1999 through and including December 31, 2000 for account #5425-6870-0942-4045."
DISCUSSION
This is a proceeding under 26 U.S.C. § 7609(b)(2) to quash a third party summons. Internal Revenue Code § 2609 sets forth special procedures and jurisdictional limitations for petitions to quash third-party summonses. That statute provides in pertinent part that "{t]he United States district court for the district within which the person to be summoned resides or is found shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any proceeding brought under subsection (b)(2) . . . ." 26 U.S.C. § 7609(h)(1) (2000). This court lacks jurisdiction over this petition because the party summoned, Credomatic of Florida, Inc., neither resides in nor can be found within the Southern District of California. Fortney v. United States, 59 F.3d 117, 119 (9th Cir. 1995). Therefore, the court GRANTS Respondent's Motion to Dismiss and ORDERS that the Petition be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.