IRS faces scrutiny over a summons that appears to have been changed after approval

A taxpayer is asking a federal court to throw out an IRS summons after discovering that an auditor appears to have altered the signed document without updating its dates or approvals.

Julia Jenkins Fancelli, an heir to the Publix Super Markets fortune and a well-known political donor, has asked the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida to quash an IRS third-party summons. Her filing alleges that an LB&I auditor altered a previously approved summons without updating signatures or dates. The procedural posture is a petition to quash, with the IRS response still pending.

The dispute matters because the allegations echo earlier document-integrity issues that arose in conservation easement cases and could renew concerns about supervisory approval and record reliability within the IRS.

The Law in Play

The challenge turns on Internal Revenue Code provisions governing IRS administrative summonses and the four-part test outlined in United States v. Powell (1964). The legal question is whether the IRS followed the required administrative steps when it issued an amended summons to a financial institution.

Fancelli argues the auditor failed to obtain proper supervisory approval for the revised summons. The IRS is likely to counter that any edits were clerical and that substantive approval was in place when the supervisor signed the original document.

There is no regulation at issue beyond the general summons framework. The court will focus on Powell’s fourth requirement.

Did the IRS follow the administrative steps that the Code requires?

Timeline

• October 2024. An LB&I auditor notifies Fancelli of a third-party summons issued to a bank for financial records. The summons cites the U.S.-Italy tax treaty. It identifies the wrong taxpayer, bank, and foreign jurisdiction.

• Days later. Fancelli’s representative contacts the auditor. The auditor issues an amended summons and notice. The revised documents retain the same issue and return dates as the originals. The electronic signature timestamp for the supervisor remains unchanged.

• Effect. On paper, the amended summons appears to have been issued before it was drafted and approved by the supervisor, before it existed in its amended form. No metadata shows that the content was changed after the signature.

• October 27, 2024. Fancelli files a petition to quash. She argues that the amended summons violates the administrative steps required under Powell because it was not properly approved.

• Now. The IRS has not yet filed a response. The case sits at the petition-to-quash phase in federal district court.

The Larger Story

The dispute highlights recurring concerns about document integrity and supervisory approval inside the IRS. Conservation easement controversies revealed similar problems. Those cases involved penalty approvals that taxpayers alleged were backdated or completed after the fact. In 2024, congressional oversight reports repeated those claims and pressed the IRS to strengthen internal controls.

IRS leadership is committed to improving risk management practices and ensuring that signed documents are reliable. The amended Fancelli summons appears to run counter to that commitment. Even if the mistake was clerical, the record suggests a gap between stated policy and day-to-day practice, especially within a division experiencing turnover and heavier workloads.

What It Means in Practice

• Taxpayers and representatives should review summonses and notices for matching dates, signature timestamps, and document metadata. Any irregularities can affect enforceability under Powell.

• For LB&I and exam practitioners, this case underscores the need to clearly document supervisory approval, especially when issuing corrected or updated summonses.

• When representing clients in cross-border information requests, confirm which treaty article the IRS is invoking and whether the request aligns with the foreign authority’s inquiry.

• Practitioners preparing to challenge a summons should evaluate whether amended documents were executed after signature or if approval for later changes is unclear.

• Audit teams should ensure amended forms are issued as new documents with updated signatures—retroactive edits risk creating a defective paper trail.

Next Steps

The IRS will file its response to Fancelli’s petition to quash. The district court will then determine whether the IRS satisfied the Code's administrative requirements and whether the remaining Powell factors support enforcement. No further deadlines are publicly listed.

One More Thing

The case is a reminder that a single altered document can jeopardize an entire summons enforcement effort.