United States of America et al v. Calhoun
Filing
7
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/13/11 re 1 Petition to Enforce IRS Summons RECOMMENDING that the IRS summons issued to respondent be enforced and that respondent be ordered to appear at the I.R.S. offices within 10 days of this issuance of the summons enforcement order, and further RECOMMENDS that if it enforces the summons, the Court retain jurisdiction to enforce its order by its contempt power. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. Objections to F&R due 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Meuleman, A)
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
16
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, KIM )
ULRING, Revenue Officer, Internal
)
Revenue Service
)
)
Petitioners,
)
)
v.
)
)
EVERETT D. CALHOUN,
)
)
Respondent.
)
__________________________________ )
Case No. 2:11-mc-00068-MCE-DAD
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE: I.R.S.
SUMMONS ENFORCEMENT
TAXPAYER: EVERETT D. CALHOUN
17
18
This matter came before me on September 30, 2011, under the Order to Show
19
Cause filed August 2, 2011, which, with the verified petition and memorandum, was
20
sufficiently served upon respondent, Mr. Everett D. Calhoun, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e),
21
on August 18, 2011. Respondent did not file written opposition.
At the hearing, Yoshinori H. T. Himel appeared for petitioner, and petitioning
22
23
Revenue Officer Kim Ulring was present. Respondent appeared in person and brought
24
with him what the Revenue Officer accepted as partial compliance with the IRS
25
summons. The parties, in open court, expressed their agreement to meet on Wednesday,
26
October 5, 2011, at 3:00 p.m., at the Sacramento IRS office, for respondent to continue
27
complying with the IRS summons.
28
///
1
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE: I.R.S. SUMMONS ENFORCEMENT
1
The Verified Petition to Enforce I.R.S. Summons initiating this proceeding seeks
2
to enforce an administrative summons (Exhibit A to the petition) in aid of Revenue
3
Officer Ulring’s investigation of Everett D. Calhoun, to determine the existence and
4
amounts of U.S. individual income tax liabilities for the taxable years ending December
5
31, 2000, December 31, 2001, December 31, 2003, and December 31, 2004.
6
Subject matter jurisdiction is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1340 and 1345, and is
7
found to be proper. I.R.C. §§ 7402(b) and 7604(a) (26 U.S.C.) authorize the government
8
to bring the action. The Order to Show Cause shifted to respondent the burden of
9
rebutting any of the four requirements of United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58
10
11
(1964).
I have reviewed the petition and documents in support. Based on the
12
uncontroverted verification of Revenue Officer Ulring and the entire record, I make the
13
following findings:
14
(1) The summons issued by Revenue Officer Kim Ulring to respondent, Everett D.
15
Calhoun, on April 20, 2010, seeking testimony and production of documents and records
16
in respondent’s possession, was issued in good faith and for a legitimate purpose under
17
I.R.C. § 7602, that is, to obtain information to determine the existence and amounts of
18
U.S. individual income tax liabilities for the taxable years ending December 31, 2000,
19
December 31, 2001, December 31, 2003, and December 31, 2004.
20
(2) The information sought is relevant to that purpose.
21
(3) The information sought is not already in the possession of the Internal Revenue
22
23
24
25
26
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.
27
(6) The verified petition and its exhibits made a prima facie showing of
28
satisfaction of the requirements of United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58 (1964).
2
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE: I.R.S. SUMMONS ENFORCEMENT
1
2
3
4
(7) The burden therefore shifted to respondent, Everett D. Calhoun, to rebut that
prima facie showing.
(8) Respondent has presented no argument or evidence to rebut the prima facie
showing.
5
I therefore recommend that the IRS summons issued to respondent, Everett D.
6
Calhoun, be enforced, and that respondent be ordered to appear at the I.R.S. offices at
7
4330 Watt Avenue, Sacramento, California 95821, before Revenue Officer Kim Ulring,
8
or her designated representative, within 10 days of this issuance of the summons
9
enforcement order, then and there to be sworn, to give testimony, and to produce for
10
examining and copying the books, checks, records, papers and other data demanded by
11
the summons, the examination to continue from day to day until completed. I further
12
recommend that if it enforces the summons, the Court retain jurisdiction to enforce its
13
order by its contempt power.
14
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
15
Judge assigned to the case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C) and Rule 304 of the
16
Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.
17
Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations,
18
any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such
19
a document should be titled “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and
20
Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within seven
21
(7) days after service of the objections. The assigned District Judge will then review
22
these findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The parties are
23
advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to
24
appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
25
DATED: October 13, 2011.
26
27
Ddad1\orders.civil\usvcalhoun0068.f&r
28
3
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE: I.R.S. SUMMONS ENFORCEMENT
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?