here - Fuerst Ittleman David & Joseph, PL

Case 3:10-mc-00024-GEB Case: 11-1612 Document: -DEA Document 003110561288 25 Filed Page: 01/07/11 55 Date Page Filed: 2 of 06/13/2011
17 PageID: 466
United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48 (1964), namely that IRS had a legitimate purpose for
conducting the investigation, that the inquiry may be relevant to the purpose, that the information
sought was not already within the Commissioner’s possession, and that the administrative steps
required by the Internal Revenue Code had been followed. (See Doc. No. 11 at 7–8.) By Letter
Order of September 3, 2010, this Court redesignated Judge Arpert’s August 25 opinion and order
as a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in accordance with the procedure approved in United
States v. Mueller, 930 F.2d 10, 12 (8th Cir. 1991) and United States v. First National Bank of
Atlanta, 628 F.2d 871, 873 (5th Cir. 1980). Petitioners timely filed objections to Magistrate
Judge Arpert’s R&R. By Letter Orders of October 5th and 28th, the Court permitted limited
discovery and supplemental briefing regarding the Government’s compliance with Internal
Revenue Code procedures.
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions and conducted de novo review of
Magistrate Judge Arpert’s R&R, this Court will adopt the R&R with modifications, grant the
Government’s motion to enforce in part, and grant the petition to quash in part.
Standard of Review
Local Civil Rule 72.1 governs this Court’s review of Magistrate Judge Arpert’s R&R.
That rule provides that the Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions [of
the R&R] to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge.” L. Civ. R. 72.1(c)(2); see also 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). In conducting its review, the Court was mindful
that it “may consider the record developed before the Magistrate Judge, [and] mak[e] [its] own
determination on the basis of that record.” L. Civ. R. 72.1(c)(2); see also State Farm Indem. v.
2
A-000010