ROBERT L. SCHULZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, -v.- UNITED STATES, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, and ANTHONY ROUNDTREE, Defendants-Appellees , UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, No. 06-0075-cv, November 14, 2006
ROBERT L. SCHULZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, -v.- UNITED STATES, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, and ANTHONY ROUNDTREE, Defendants-Appellees
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
November 14, 2006
THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 14 th day of November, Two thousand six.
PIERRE N. LEVAL
JOSи A. CABRANES
APPEARING FOR APPELLANT : ROBERT L. SCHULZ, pro se .
APPEARING FOR APPELLEES : KENNETH W. ROSENBERG, Attorney, Tax Division, United States Department of Justice (Eileen J. O'Connor, Assistant Attorney General, Richard Farber, Attorney, Tax Division, United States Department of Justice, on the brief , Rosylnn R. Mauskopf, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, of counsel ), Washington, DC.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Sandra J. Feuerstein, Judge ).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED .
Plaintiff Robert L. Schulz appeals the dismissal of his petition to quash an IRS third-party subpoena pursuant to 26 U.S.C. ╖ 7609(b)(2), and of his request for injunctive relief against the defendants named in this action. We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts, the issues on appeal and the procedural history.
Upon a review of the record, we conclude that the District Court did not err in dismissing Schulz's petition to quash because it was not timely filed, and in dismissing his request for injunctive relief on the basis of the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. ╖ 7421(a). Because Schulz does not claim that equitable tolling principles should apply to his case, we intimate no view on whether equitable tolling would be available under Section 7609(b)(2) in an appropriate case. See , e.g., United States v. Brockamp , 519 U.S. 347 (1997); Irwin v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs , 498 U.S. 89 (1990).
We have considered all of Schulz's arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.
FOR THE COURT,
By: Richard Alcantara, Deputy Clerk