United States of America v. Lonsdale

Filing 7

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 3/29/12 RECOMMENDING that the IRS summonses issued to respondent, Matthew Lonsdale, be enforced and that respondent be ordered to appear at the I.R.S. offices at 4330 Watt A venue, Sacramento, California, 95821, before Revenue Officer Sireen Michael, or her designated representative, on 4/26/12, at 10:00 a.m., as agreed in open court on 3/14/12, or at a later date and time to be set in writing by Revenue Officer Michael, then and there to be sworn, to give testimony, and to produce for examining and copying the books, checks, records, papers and other data demanded by the summons, the examination to continue from day to day until completed. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections to F&R due by 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4

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, California 95814-2322
Telephone: [phone]

5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

12
13
14

Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 2:12-mc-00004-KJM-EFB
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS RE: I.R.S.
SUMMONS ENFORCEMENT

MATTHEW R. LONSDALE,

15

Respondent.

Taxpayer:
MATTHEW R. LONSDALE

16
17

This matter came before me on March 14, 2012, under the Order to Show Cause

18

filed January 26, 2012. That order, with the verified petition and exhibits, was served on

19

respondent in conformity with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e) on February 7, 2012. Dckt. No. 4.

20

Yoshinori H. T. Himel and Revenue Officer Sireen Michael appeared for petitioners.

21

Respondent did not file an opposition, but did appear at the hearing and had no objection

22

to the Summons. Respondent agreed in open court to appear at the I.R.S. offices at 4330

23

Watt Avenue, Sacramento, California 95821, before Revenue Officer Sireen Michael, or

24

her designated representative, on April 26, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., to comply with the

25

summonses.

26

The Verified Petition to Enforce Internal Revenue Service Summons initiating this

27

proceeding seeks to enforce two administrative summonses (Exhibit A to the petition) in

28

aid of Revenue Officer Michael’s investigation of Matthew R. Lonsdale. The first
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations Re: I.R.S. Summons Enforcement

Page 1

1

summons is to ascertain facts relevant to the collection of amounts delinquent under the

2

federal tax laws for the taxable years ending December 31, 2001, December 31, 2002,

3

December 31, 2003, and December 31, 2007. The second summons is to determine the

4

existence and amounts of U.S. individual income tax liabilities for the taxable years

5

ending December 31, 2004, December 31, 2005, December 31, 2006, December 31,

6

2008, December 31, 2009, and December 31, 2010.

7

Subject matter jurisdiction is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1340 and 1345, and is

8

found to be proper. Authorization for the action is under I.R.C. §§ 7402(b) and 7604(a)

9

(26 U.S.C.). The Order to Show Cause shifted to respondent the burden of rebutting any

10
11

of the four 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

12

uncontroverted verification of Revenue Officer Michael and the entire record, I make the

13

following findings:

14

(1) The summonses issued by Revenue Officer Sireen Michael to respondent,

15

Matthew Lonsdale, on July 28, 2011, seeking testimony and production of documents and

16

records in respondent's possession, were issued in good faith and for a legitimate purpose

17

under I.R.C. § 7602, that is, to ascertain facts relevant to the collection of amounts

18

delinquent under the federal tax laws for the taxable years ending December 31, 2001,

19

December 31, 2002, December 31, 2003, and December 31, 2007, and to determine the

20

existence and amounts of U.S. individual income tax liabilities for the taxable years

21

ending December 31, 2004, December 31, 2005, December 31, 2006, December 31,

22

2008, December 31, 2009, and December 31, 2010.

23

(2) The information sought is relevant to that purpose.

24

(3) The information sought is not already in the possession of the Internal Revenue

25
26
27

Service.
(4) The administrative steps required by the Internal Revenue Code have been
followed.

28
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations Re: I.R.S. Summons Enforcement

Page 2

1
2

(5) There is no evidence of referral of this case by the Internal Revenue Service to
the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution.

3

(6) The verified petition and its exhibits made a prima facie showing of

4

satisfaction of the requirements of United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58 (1964).

5
6
7
8

(7) The burden shifted to respondent, Matthew Lonsdale, to rebut that prima facie
showing.
(8) Respondent presented no argument or evidence to rebut the prima facie
showing.

9

I therefore recommend that the IRS summonses issued to respondent, Matthew

10

Lonsdale, be enforced, and that respondent be ordered to appear at the I.R.S. offices at

11

4330 Watt Avenue, Sacramento, California, 95821, before Revenue Officer Sireen

12

Michael, or her designated representative, on April 26, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., as agreed in

13

open court on March 14, 2012, or at a later date and time to be set in writing by Revenue

14

Officer Michael, then and there to be sworn, to give testimony, and to produce for

15

examining and copying the books, checks, records, papers and other data demanded by

16

the summons, the examination to continue from day to day until completed.

17

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

18

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C)

19

and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern

20

District of California. Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and

21

recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy

22

on all parties. Such a document should be titled "Objections to Magistrate Judge's

23

Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed

24

within fourteen days after service of the objections. The District Judge will then review

25

these findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The parties are

26

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

27

appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

28
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations Re: I.R.S. Summons Enforcement

Page 3

1
2
3

The Clerk shall serve these findings and recommendations and any future orders to
Mr. Matthew Lonsdale, 608 Gold Circle, Rocklin, CA 95765.
It is SO ORDERED.

4
5

DATED: March 29, 2012.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations Re: I.R.S. Summons Enforcement

Page 4