With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was a dual-purpose summons, we need not answer the question whether the additional information sought from Ritchie by the IRS was "relevant to a legitimate investigation” of his firm. 8 . The statutory protections are not strong in any event; the prior approval required is not difficult to obtain because it is given ex parte solely on the basis of the petition and supporting affidavits. See I.R.C. § 7609(h)(2). 9 . We also note that it has been held that "the criteria in 26 U.S.C. § 7609(f) governing ex parte issuance of a John Doe summons pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7609(h)(1) are not appropriate grounds to challenge enforcement of the summons." In re Does, 688 F.2d 144, 145-46 (2d Cir.1982) (footnote omitted). But see United States v. Brigham Young Univ., 679 F.2d 1345 (10th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>), vacated and remanded (for consideration of

A: holding that the summoned party may in an enforcement proceeding challenge the  7609f2 determination that there is a reasonable basis for believing there may be a violation of a revenue law
B: holding that a party may be liable under  1447c only where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal
C: holding that the alj is not obliged to accept an iq if there is a substantial basis in the record for believing that the claimant was feigning the results
D: holding that there was no justiciable controversy and that while many laws may be easily subject to challenge we may only review such matters in a proper law suit
A.