Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-mc-00005/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-mc-00005-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 26:7402 IRS: Petition to Enforce IRS Summons

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

YOSHINORI H. T. HIMEL #66194

Assistant U. S. Attorney

501 I Street, Suite 10-100

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: (916) 554-2760

Attorneys for Petitioners

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and RO LYNNE M. HARTMANN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and

LYNNE M. HARTMANN, Revenue

Officer, Internal Revenue Service,

Petitioners,

v.

MELVIN STARK,

Respondent.

2:06-mc-00005-GEB-PAN (JFM)

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS

AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE:

I.R.S. SUMMONS ENFORCEMENT

Taxpayer: MELVIN STARK

This matter came before me on April 13, 2006, under the Order to Show Cause filed

February 2, 2006, which, with the verified petition and exhibits, was personally served on the

respondent on February 17, 2006. Yoshinori H. T. Himel appeared for petitioners, and

petitioning Revenue Officer Lynne M. Hartmann was present. Respondent did not file an

opposition but was present at the hearing. At the hearing, petitioners withdrew the tax

determination part of the proceeding (premised on Exhibit B to the Petition) because of

respondent’s compliance, in the interim, with that summons.

The Verified Petition to Enforce Internal Revenue Service Summonses initiating this

proceeding now seeks to enforce an administrative summons in aid of Revenue Officer Lynne

M. Hartmann’s investigation for tax collection for years 1995, 1997-98, and 2000-01 (Exhibit

A to the Petition). Subject matter jurisdiction is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1340 and 1345,

Case 2:06-mc-00005-GEB-PAN Document 10 Filed 04/19/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

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

7604(a). The Order to Show Cause shifted to respondent the burden of rebutting any 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 uncontroverted

verification of Revenue Officer Hartmann and the entire record, I make the following

findings:

(1) The summons issued by Revenue Officer Lynne M. Hartmann to respondent

Melvin Stark on May 11, 2005, seeking testimony and production of documents and records

in respondent's possession, was in good faith and for a legitimate purpose under I.R.C.

§ 7602, that is, to determine financial information to aid in the collection of the duly assessed

and noticed tax liabilities of Melvin Stark for the years 1995, 1997-98, and 2000-01.

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

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

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.

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

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

(7) The burden shifted to respondent, Melvin Stark, to rebut that prima facie showing.

(8) Despite respondent’s appearance at the hearing, Respondent presented no argument

or evidence to rebut the prima facie showing.

It is therefore the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that the IRS summons

issued to respondent, Melvin Stark, be enforced, and that respondent be ordered to appear at

the I.R.S. offices at 4330 Watt Avenue, Sacramento, California, 95821, before Revenue

Officer Lynne M. Hartmann or her designated representative, on Wednesday, May 10, 2006,

at 2:00 p.m., or at a later date and time set in writing by the Revenue Officer, then and there to

Case 2:06-mc-00005-GEB-PAN Document 10 Filed 04/19/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

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. 

These findings and recommendation are submitted to the United States District Judge

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

72-304 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

California. Within ten (10) days after being served with these findings and recommendations,

any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a

document should be titled "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and

Recommendations." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) days

after service of the objections. The District Judge will then review these findings and

recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The parties are advised that failure to

file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's

order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: April 18, 2006.

Case 2:06-mc-00005-GEB-PAN Document 10 Filed 04/19/06 Page 3 of 3