ELD-041 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 10-1660
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; MARY ARNDT, REVENUE OFFICER OF THE
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
v.
EBERT G. BEEMAN
v.
GE CLIENT BUSINESS SERVICES; ED PATTISON; KEITH SHERIN
Ebert G. Beeman,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(W.D. Pa. Civil No. 09-cv-00158)
District Judge: Honorable Sean J. McLaughlin
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
July 15, 2010
Before: CHAGARES, JORDAN AND VANASKIE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: July 28, 2010)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Ebert Beeman, proceeding pro se, appeals an order of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania enforcing a summons issued by the
Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), granting summary judgment in favor of the United
States and two Revenue Officers, and dismissing his claims against his former employer.
We will affirm.
IRS Revenue Officer Ed Pattison issued a summons directing Beeman to produce
certain records and data in connection with an investigation of Beeman’s federal income
tax liability. Alleging that Beeman had failed to fully comply with the summons, the
United States and Revenue Officer Mary Arndt filed a complaint in District Court seeking
to enforce the summons. Beeman filed two documents asserting counterclaims against
Pattison and Arndt and a claim against his former employer, GE Client Business Services
and Keith Sherin. Beeman challenged liens, levies, and/or garnishments that were
imposed against his property and accounts in connection with various tax years.
Arndt and Pattison moved for summary judgment on Beeman’s claims and GE
Client Business Services and Sherin moved to dismiss them. The District Court granted
these motions and ordered Beeman to comply with the IRS summons insofar as it relates
to the years ending December 31, 2000 and December 31, 2001. This appeal followed.
As further discussed in the District Court’s decision, the record reflects that
Pattison was assigned to Beeman’s case in 2007 and that, at that time, the IRS held a lien
2
against Beeman in the amount of $1,729,371.71. Beeman’s case involved unfiled income
tax returns for the years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2005, and 2006, and unpaid income taxes for
the years 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 2003, and 2004. In 2008, Beeman filed tax returns for
2002, 2005, 2006 but he did not pay his tax liabilities. Pattison filed two notices of
federal tax liens in connection with these tax returns, which were provided to Beeman.
In 2009, Beeman’s case was reassigned to Arndt. Arndt determined that, with the
exception of 2002, Beeman had been issued two final notices of intent to levy in
connection with the years that he had unpaid tax liabilities and that Beeman had not
submitted a collection due process appeal. Arndt issued a final notice of intent to levy
related to Beeman’s 2002 income tax liability. Arndt also determined that Beeman had
requested a collection due process hearing in connection with the tax lien notice related to
tax year 2002 and forwarded that request to the Appeals Office. Finally, Arndt issued a
notice of levy on wages, salary and other income to GE Client Business Services in order
to attach Beeman’s pension benefits. This levy was related to the unpaid income tax
liabilities for tax years 1994-1997 and 2003-2006, and totaled $2,068,600.43.
In his claim against Pattison and Arndt, Beeman argued that the liens and levies
are unlawful because the notices of liens had not been approved by the District Court.
We agree with the District Court that the statutory provisions applicable to the imposition
of liens and levies by the IRS do not require such approval. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 6320, 6330,
6331. Because Beeman’s claim lacked merit, the District Court properly granted
3
summary judgment in favor of Pattison and Arndt.1
We also conclude that the District Court properly dismissed Beeman’s claim
against GE Client Business Services and Keith Sherin, Beeman’s former employer, for
their acts in complying with the levy. As noted by the District Court, under 26 U.S.C.
§ 6332(e), third parties are discharged from liability to a delinquent taxpayer for
complying with the terms of an IRS levy. See Moore v. General Motors Pension Plans,
91 F.3d 848, 851 (7th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (holding bank was immune from liability
under § 6332(e) for surrendering property in compliance with an IRS notice of levy).
Finally, the District Court did not err in ordering Beeman to comply with the IRS
summons. The United States and Arndt submitted Pattison’s affidavit, which established
that he had been investigating Beeman’s tax liability, that the information sought was
relevant to the investigation, that the IRS did not already have the information, and that
the IRS complied with the requisite administrative steps in issuing the summons. See
United States v. Rockwell Int’l, 897 F.2d 1255, 1262 (3d Cir. 1990) (setting forth prima
facie showing Government must make before a summons can be enforced). Beeman did
not attest to facts demonstrating an issue of fact or advance a legal defense to the
summons. The District Court also afforded Beeman an opportunity to offer a defense to
the complaint at a hearing and he failed to do so.
1
The District Court also properly rejected Beeman’s argument that the motion for
summary judgment filed by Arndt and Pattison could not be granted because the motion
was untimely filed.
4
Accordingly, because this appeal does not raise a substantial question, we will
affirm the District Court’s order.