United States of America v. Bacon
Filing
12
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 11/23/2011 re 1 Petition to Enforce IRS Summons. Referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 12/6/2011. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney
YOSHINORI H. T. HIMEL #66194
Assistant United States Attorney
Eastern District of California
501 I Street, Suite 10-100
Sacramento, CA 95814-2322
Telephone: (916) 554-2760
Facsimile: (916) 554-2900
Email: yoshinori.himel@usdoj.gov
6
Attorney for Petitioner United States of America
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
NATHAN D. BACON,
)
)
Respondent.
)
__________________________________ )
Case No. 1:11-cv-01250-AWI-SMS
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE: I.R.S.
SUMMONS ENFORCEMENT
TAXPAYER: NATHAN D. BACON
16
17
This matter came before me on November 16, 2011, under the Order to Show
18
Cause filed August 2, 2011, which, with the verified petition and memorandum, was
19
personally served upon respondent on September 15, 2011. Respondent did not file
20
written opposition.
21
22
23
At the hearing, Yoshinori H. T. Himel appeared telephonically for petitioner, and
investigating Revenue Officer Michael Nicholas was present. Respondent did not appear.
The Verified Petition to Enforce I.R.S. Summons initiating this proceeding seeks
24
to enforce an administrative summons (Exhibit A to the petition) in aid of Revenue
25
Officer Nicholas’ investigation of Nathan D. Bacon to determine his correct liabilities for
26
personal income tax for the tax years ending December 31, 2005, December 31, 2006,
27
December 31, 2007, and December 31, 2009.
28
1
1
Subject matter jurisdiction is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1340 and 1345, and is
2
found to be proper. I.R.C. §§ 7402(b) and 7604(a) (26 U.S.C.) authorize the government
3
to bring the action. The Order to Show Cause shifted to respondent the burden of
4
rebutting any of the four requirements of United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58
5
(1964).
6
I have reviewed the petition and documents in support. Based on the
7
uncontroverted verification of Revenue Officer Nicholas and the entire record, I make the
8
following findings:
9
(1) The summons issued by Revenue Officer Martha Rodriguez to respondent,
10
Nathan D. Bacon, on January 7, 2011, seeking testimony and production of documents
11
and records in respondent's possession, was issued in good faith and for a legitimate
12
purpose under I.R.C. § 7602, that is, to determine his correct liabilities for personal
13
income tax for the tax years ending December 31, 2005, December 31, 2006, December
14
31, 2007, and December 31, 2009.
15
(2) The information sought is relevant to that purpose.
16
(3) The information sought is not already in the possession of the Internal Revenue
17
18
19
20
21
Service.
(4) The administrative steps required by the Internal Revenue Code have been
followed.
(5) There is no evidence of referral of this case by the Internal Revenue Service to
the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution.
22
(6) The verified petition and its exhibits made a prima facie showing of
23
satisfaction of the requirements of United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58 (1964).
24
25
26
27
(7) The burden shifted to respondent, Nathan D. Bacon, to rebut that prima facie
showing.
(8) Respondent presented no argument or evidence to rebut the prima facie
showing.
28
2
1
I therefore recommend that the IRS summons issued to respondent, Nathan D.
2
Bacon, be enforced, and that respondent be ordered to appear at the I.R.S. offices at 1533
3
Lakewood Avenue, Modesto, California 95355, before Revenue Officer Michael
4
Nicholas, or his designated representative, twenty-one (21) days after the issuance of the
5
order, or at a later date to be set in writing by Revenue Officer Nicholas, then and there to
6
be sworn, to give testimony, and to produce for examining and copying the books, checks,
7
records, papers and other data demanded by the summons, the examination to continue
8
from day to day until completed. I further recommend that if it enforces the summons,
9
the Court retain jurisdiction to enforce its order by its contempt power.
10
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
11
Judge assigned to the case, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C) and Rule 72-304 of
12
the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.
13
Within ten (10) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any
14
party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a
15
document should be titled "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and
16
Recommendations." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within ten (10)
17
days after service of the objections. The District Judge will then review these findings
18
and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The parties are advised that
19
failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the
20
District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
21
22
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
Dated:
icido3
November 23, 2011
/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?