United States of America v. Torres, Jr.
Filing
10
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS and ORDER regarding IRS Summons Enforcement signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 7/1/2015. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; (Objections to F&R due by 7/20/2015). (Lundstrom, T)
1 BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney
2 BOBBIE J. MONTOYA
Assistant United States Attorney
3 Eastern District of California
501 I Street, Suite 10-100
4 Sacramento, CA 95814-2322
Telephone: (916) 554-2775
5 Facsimile: (916) 554-2900
email: bobbie.montoya@usdoj.gov
6
7 Attorneys for Petitioner United States of America
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner,
12
v.
13
14
1:15-cv-00427-LJO-MJS
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND ORDER RE:
I.R.S. SUMMONS ENFORCEMENT
HERLIN TORRES, JR.,
Respondent.
15
Taxpayer:
HERLIN TORRES, JR.
16
17
18
19
This matter came on before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on June 12, 2015, under
20 the Order to Show Cause filed March 24, 2015. Dkt. 6. The order, with the verified petition
21 filed March 18, 2015 (Dkt. 1), and its supporting memorandum (Dkt. 5-1), was personally
22 served on Olma Torres, Respondent’s wife, at their place of residence, 4326 North Emerson
23 Avenue, Apartment 101, Fresno, California. Dkt. 7. Respondent did not file opposition or non24 opposition to the verified petition as provided for in the Order to Show Cause. At the hearing,
25 Bobbie J. Montoya, Assistant United States Attorney, appeared on behalf of Petitioner, and
26 investigating Revenue Officer Dennis Stiffler also was present in the courtroom. Respondent
27 appeared at the show cause hearing.
28 / / /
30
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND ORDER RE: I.R.S.
SUMMONS ENFORCEMENT
1
The Verified Petition to Enforce IRS Summons initiating this proceeding seeks to enforce
1
2 administrative summonses (Exhibits A and B to the Petition) issued July 17, 2014. The
3 summonses are part of an investigation of the respondent to secure information needed to collect
4 assessed federal income taxes (Form 1040) for tax years ending December 31, 2000,
5 December 31, 2001, December 31, 2002, December 31, 2005, and December 31, 2010, and
6 seeking information needed to determine the correct federal income taxes and statutory additions
7 for the tax years ending December 31, 2006, December 31, 2007, December 31, 2008,
8 December 31, 2011, and December 31, 2013.
Subject matter jurisdiction is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1340 and 1345, and is found to
9
10 be proper. I.R.C. §§ 7402(b) and 7604(a) (26 U.S.C.) authorize the government to bring the
11 action. The Order to Show Cause shifted to respondent the burden of rebutting any of the four
12 requirements of United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58 (1964).
I have reviewed the petition and documents in support. Based on the uncontroverted
13
14 verified petition by Revenue Officer Dennis Stiffler and the entire record, I make the following
15 findings:
(1) The summonses (Exhibits A and B to the Petition) issued by Revenue Officer Dennis
16
17 Stiffler on July 17, 2014, and served upon Respondent, on July 17, 2014, seeking testimony and
18 production of documents and records in respondent’s possession, were issued in good faith and
19 for a legitimate purpose under I.R.C. § 7602, that is, to secure information needed to collect
20 assessed federal income taxes (Form 1040) for tax years ending December 31, 2000, December 31,
21 2001, December 31, 2002, December 31, 2005, and December 31, 2010, and seeking information
22 needed to determine the correct federal income taxes and statutory additions for the tax years ending
23 December 31, 2006, December 31, 2007, December 31, 2008, December 31, 2011, and December 31,
24 2013.
25
(2) The information sought is relevant to that purpose.
26
(3) The information sought is not already in the possession of the Internal Revenue
27 Service.
28
30
(4) The administrative steps required by the Internal Revenue Code have been followed.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND ORDER RE: I.R.S.
SUMMONS ENFORCEMENT
2
1
(5) There is no evidence of referral of this case by the Internal Revenue Service to the
2 Department of Justice for criminal prosecution.
3
(6) The verified petition and its exhibits made a prima facie showing of satisfaction of the
4 requirements of United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58 (1964).
5
(7) The burden shifted to respondent, Olma Torres, to rebut that prima facie showing.
6
(8) Respondent presented no argument or evidence to rebut the prima facie showing.
7
I therefore recommend that the I.R.S. summonses served upon Respondent, be enforced;
8 and that Respondent be ordered to appear at the I.R.S. offices at 5300 West Tulare Avenue,
9 Suite 106, Visalia, California, before Revenue Officer Stiffler or his designated representative,
10 on or before July 22, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., as agreed to by Revenue Officer Stiffler and
11 Respondent Herlin Torres, Jr., at the show cause hearing. Revenue Officer Stiffler is to mail
12 IRS Form 433-A (“Collection Information Statement for Wage Earners and Self-Employed
13 Individuals") immediately to Respondent. Respondent is to fill out the form and attach all
14 documents requested therein, complete the form, sign it under penalty of perjury, and take it to
15 the July 22 appearance at I.R.S. Should the July 22, 2015, appearance need to be continued or
16 rescheduled, it should be set in writing for a later date by Revenue Officer Stiffler. Respondent
17 is to appear before Revenue Officer Stiffler or his designated representative, then and there to be
18 sworn, to give testimony, and to produce for examining and copying the books, checks, records,
19 papers and other data demanded by the summons, the examination to continue from day to day
20 until completed. I further recommend that if it enforces the summons, the Court retain
21 jurisdiction to enforce its order by its contempt power.
22
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
23 assigned to the case, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of
24 the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Within fourteen (14) days
25 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
26 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be titled
27 "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the objections
28 shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The District
30
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND ORDER RE: I.R.S.
SUMMONS ENFORCEMENT
3
1 Judge will then review these findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
2 The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the
3 right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
4
THE CLERK SHALL SERVE this and further orders by mail to Herlin Torres, Jr., 4326
5 North Emerson Avenue, Apartment 101, Fresno, California 93705.
6
7 IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9
Dated:
July 1, 2015
/s/
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND ORDER RE: I.R.S.
SUMMONS ENFORCEMENT
4
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?