FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 06 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-17369
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:06-cv-00273-RCJ-
GWF
v.
REINHOLD V. SOMMERSTEDT, MEMORANDUM *
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert Clive Jones, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 24, 2011 **
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reinhold V. Sommerstedt appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment for the United States in its action brought under 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402 and
7408 to enjoin him from promoting, organizing, and selling abusive tax evasion
and shelter products in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 6700. We have jurisdiction under
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the grant of summary judgment, Scott v.
Pasadena Unified Sch. Dist., 306 F.3d 646, 652 (9th Cir. 2002), and for an abuse
of discretion the imposition of an injunction, United States v. Estate Pres. Servs.,
202 F.3d 1093, 1097 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and
remand.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Sommerstedt
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the tax avoidance
plans that he promoted constituted conduct subject to penalty under § 6700.
Accordingly, because the statutory requirements were met, the district court did not
abuse its discretion in granting injunctive relief to the United States under § 7408.
See Estate Pres. Servs., 202 F.3d at 1098 (setting forth statutory requirements for
injunctive relief under § 7408 for violations of § 6700).
However, Sommerstedt contends that the injunctive relief granted under
§ 7402 violates his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Although
we are not persuaded with respect to the requirement that Sommerstedt notify
customers of the injunction against him, we agree that compelling Sommerstedt to
provide the government with a list of customers is privileged because it may lead
to incriminating evidence in a subsequent investigation. See United States v.
Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 38 (2000) (“Compelled testimony that communicates
2 09-17369
information that may lead to incriminating evidence is privileged even if the
information itself is not inculpatory.” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
Accordingly, we remand for further proceedings consistent with our
disposition.
Sommerstedt’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Sommerstedt’s pending motions are denied.
The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.
3 09-17369