here - Fuerst Ittleman David & Joseph, PL
here - Fuerst Ittleman David & Joseph, PL
here - Fuerst Ittleman David & Joseph, PL
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Case: 11-1612 Document: 003110561288 Page: 24 Date Filed: 06/13/2011<br />
No. 9739-09 (T.C.); Lewis Teffeau v. Comm’r, No. 27904-10 (T.C.); Linda Teffeau<br />
v. Comm’r, No. 27905-10 (T.C.); H. Birdman v. Comm’r, No. 5817-10 (T.C.); D.<br />
Birdman v. Comm’r, No. 5816-10 (T.C.); Harvey & Diane Birdman v. Comm’r,<br />
No. 28897-10 (T.C.); H. Hirsch v. Comm’r, No. 5821-10 (T.C.); B. Hirsch v.<br />
Comm’r, No. 5819-10 (T.C.); Herbert & Bonita Hirsch v. Comm’r, No. 6034-11<br />
(T.C.); L. Brooker v. Comm’r, No. 18164-09 (T.C.); A. Brooker v. Comm’r, No.<br />
18182-09 (T.C.) (All of the Tax Court cases are Petitions for Redetermination).<br />
STATEMENT OF THE STANDARD AND SCOPE OF REVIEW<br />
The standard of review for the issues raised in Point I is de novo.<br />
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT<br />
Appellant respectfully requests Oral Argument of this case as such would be<br />
beneficial to the Court‘s review of the matters contained in this appeal.<br />
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT<br />
The District Court erred in its application of the Supreme Court‘s seminal<br />
case of Powell, supra, and its progeny, including cases from this Circuit. The<br />
District Court‘s conclusion that the enforcement of the respective IRS summonses<br />
would not result in an abuse of the District Court‘s process was in error as<br />
Appellant had demonstrated valid other grounds besides the four explicit Powell<br />
factors. Appellant had demonstrated that the IRS audit of Mr. Gangi was<br />
FUERST ITTLEMAN, <strong>PL</strong><br />
1001 BRICKELL BAY DRIVE, 32 ND FLOOR, MIAMI, FL 33131 • T: 305.350.5690 • F: 305.371.8989 • WWW.FUERSTLAW.COM<br />
16 | P a g e
Change language