OPINION *
Anthony Masciantonio is the sole proprietor of Thermoall Remodeling. In July 2014, he filed in the District Court a petition to quash two Internal Revenue Service (IRS) summonses. The IRS had issued those summonses in connection with an investigation into Masciantonio’s tax lia*109bilities for his business.1 Masciantonio also sought a protective order requesting that the Government be further prohibited from obtaining discovery related to his business.2 The Government subsequently filed a motion for summary enforcement and denial of Masciantonio’s petition to quash.
In a December 17, 2015 order, the District Court denied Masciantonio’s petition to quash the summonses as well as the other relief that he sought. The order further granted the Government’s motion for summary enforcement, Masciantonio appeals.
The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402(b) and 7609(h), and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review questions of fact for clear error and questions of law de novo. See United States v. Ins. Consultants of Knox, Inc., 187 F.3d 755, 759 (7th Cir.1999).
Section 7602(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) authorizes the IRS to issue a summons “[f]or the purpose of ascertaining the correctness of any return, making a return where none has been made, determining the liability of any person for any internal revenue tax ..., or collecting any such liability.” 26 U.S.C.- § 7602(a). To establish a prima facie case for the legality of a summons, the IRS must show that: (1) the investigation will be conducted pursuant to a legitimate purpose; (2) the inquiry may be relevant to the purpose; (3) the information sought is not already within the Commissioner’s possession; and (4) the administrative steps required by the IRC have been followed. United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58, 85 S.Ct. 248, 13 L.Ed.2d 112 (1964). Once the IRS has made its prima facie case, the taxpayer bears the burden of disproving any one of the four Powell elements or otherwise demonstrating that “enforcement of the summons will result in an abuse of the court’s process.” United States v. Rockwell Int'l, 897 F.2d 1255, 1262 (3d Cir.1990).
For the reasons identified by the District Court, we agree that the IRS has satisfied the Powell factors. Briefly, the IRS provided a sworn declaration from an Agent involved with Masciantonio’s case which supports the conclusion that the summonses were issued for a legitimate purpose and that proper procedure was followed. Among other things, the Agent declared that the summonses had been issued to determine the correctness of Masciantonio’s tax returns for the years 2009 thought 2012 in order to ascertain whether he had committed any offense under the Internal Revenue Code, which is a legitimate purpose under 28 U.S.C. § 7602(a). Further, all administrative steps required for the issuance of the summons had been followed.
Masciantonio has not set forth any information suggesting that the IRS acted in bad faith or that it lacked the authority to issue either summons. Indeed, many of the arguments that he raised in support of his petition to quash (and on appeal here) were previously rejected by this Court in *110connection with Masciantonio’s appeal of the denial of his petition to quash an earlier IRS summons. See Masciantonio v. United States, 528 Fed.Appx. 120, 122 (3d Cir.2013) (not precedential).3
Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. Masciantonio’s motion to refund the filing fee for this appeal is denied. See Porter v. Dep’t of the Treasury, 564 F.3d 176, 179 (3d Cir.2009).