-against- ) No. SA05CA1056
HENRY D. GOLTZ )
Henry D. Goltz, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. I am the Respondent in the matter captioned above and I make this affidavit in support of the motion to vacate the order of this court, signed on October 31, 2005, enforcing the IRS Summons.
2. On November 21, 2005, Respondent was served by a United States Marshall with a copy of said Order, together with a copy of a Petition To Enforce Internal Revenue Service Summons, signed by Craig A. Gargotta, Assistant U.S. Attorney, with its exhibits A, B and C.
3. The Court’s Order orders Respondent to comply with the IRS Summons by November 30, 2005 or answer to a charge of criminal contempt of court.
4. Prior to November 21, Respondent had no knowledge of DOJ’s Petition To Enforce the IRS Summons.
5. In violation of his 5th and 14th Amendment Right to Due Process, Respondent was not given an opportunity to seek judicial review of the validity of the summons or to otherwise respond to DOJ’s Petition to Enforce the IRS Summons.
6. “[I]f the IRS seeks enforcement of a summons through the federal courts, those subject to the proposed order must be given a reasonable opportunity to contest the government’s request.” Schulz v IRS, 413 F.3d 297, 299 (2d Cir. 2005) (Schulz II).
7. “Reading 26 U.S.C. Sections 7210 and 7604 to allow the imposition of penal consequences for failure to comply with an IRS summons renders the sections unconstitutional unless the summoned taxpayer has an opportunity to seek judicial review of the summons before placing the taxpayer at risk of punishment.” Schulz v IRS, 413 F.3d 297, 301 (2d Cir. 2005) (Schulz II). (emphasis in the original).
The ruling in Schulz is consistent with the
rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, to wit, “[W]e remit the parties to the
comprehensive procedure of the Code, which provides full opportunity for
judicial review before any coercive sanctions my be imposed.” Reisman v
Caplin, 375 U.S. 440 (1964). “ Congress has provided protection from
arbitrary or capricious action by placing the federal courts between the
Government and the person summoned [by the IRS].” United States v Bisceglia,
420 U.S. 141 (1975). “ [T]he summoned party is entitled to challenge the
issuance of the summons in as adversary proceeding in federal court prior to
enforcement, and may assert appropriate defenses.” United States v. Euge,
444 U.S. 707,719 (1980) (emphasis added). “Thus the [IRS] summons is
administratively issued but its enforcement is only by federal court authority
in an adversary proceeding affording the opportunity for challenge and complete
protection to the witness.” Donaldson v.
9. Based on the above, respondent respectfully requests an order vacating the Court’s October 31, 2005 Order, and for such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper.
Dated: November 23, 2005
Sworn to before me
this ___ day of November, 2005