Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02101/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02101-1/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

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations Re: I.R.S. Summons Enforcement Page 1

McGREGOR W. SCOTT

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: (916) 554-2760

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and

LYNNE HARTMANN, Revenue

Officer, Internal Revenue Service,

Petitioners,

v.

DANIEL E. MAHONEY, 

Respondent.

2:07-cv-02101-MCE-EFB

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDINGS

AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE:

I.R.S. SUMMONS ENFORCEMENT

AND ORDER

Taxpayer: DANIEL E. MAHONEY

This matter came before me on December 5, 2007, under the Order to Show Cause

filed October 10, 2007, which, with the verified petition and exhibits, was effectively

served on respondent in October 2007. Yoshinori H. T. Himel appeared for petitioners,

and petitioning Revenue Officer Lynne Hartmann was present. Respondent neither filed

an opposition nor appeared at the hearing.

The Verified Petition to Enforce Internal Revenue Service Summons initiating this

proceeding seeks to enforce an administrative summons (Exhibit A to the petition) in aid

of Revenue Officer Hartmann’s investigation for determination of respondent's federal

income tax liabilities for the years 2003, 2005, and 2006. Subject matter jurisdiction is

invoked under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1340 and 1345, and is found to be proper. Authorization for

the action is under I.R.C. §§ 7402(b) and 7604(a) (26 U.S.C.).

Case 2:07-cv-02101-MCE -EFB Document 8 Filed 12/27/07 Page 1 of 5
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

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations Re: I.R.S. Summons Enforcement Page 2

On the subject of process service, the file contains a postal trace confirming that

respondent receives his mail at 12245 Dyer Court, Auburn, California. That fact and the

physical presence of vehicles registered to respondent show that he lives there. Over a

three-week period beginning October 24, 2007, Revenue Officer Ken Longanecker made

at least nine visits there to serve process in this case. Respondent's vehicles were parked

there during each of these visits. Business cards left by Mr. Longanecker were moved. A

vehicle driver caused the garage door to open and entered the garage while Mr.

Longanecker watched. Despite these indications of occupancy and actual presence in the

house, nobody would answer the door. Mr. Longanecker repeatedly left business cards

asking for a return communication. Finally, Mr. Longanecker left a copy of the court's

process on the door in a sealed envelope, and mailed another copy to respondent at his

residence.

The court finds that respondent evaded service despite petitioners' diligence in

attempting to serve him with process. The court further finds that the steps taken to serve

respondent were reasonably calculated to give him actual notice and that they did give

him actual notice of the proceedings.

Rule 81(a)(5), Fed. R. Civ. P, makes Rule 4 “apply to proceedings to compel

testimony or the production of documents through a subpoena issued by a United States

officer . . . except as otherwise provided . . . by court order in the proceedings.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 81(a)(5) (emphasis added). Thus, “a district court, by local rule or by order, may

limit the application of the rules in a summons proceeding.” Donaldson v. United States,

400 U.S. 517, 528-29 (1971). 

Furthermore, “[i]t is settled that a face to face encounter and an in hand delivery of

the papers is not always essential under Rule 4(e)(2). Gambone v. Lite-Rock Drywall

Corp., 124 Fed. Appx. 78, 79-80 (3d Cir. 2005) (citing 4A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur

R. Miller et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1095 (3d ed. 2002)) (internal quotations

omitted). “If the defendant attempts to evade service or refuses to accept delivery after

being informed by the process server of the nature of the papers, it usually is sufficient for

Case 2:07-cv-02101-MCE -EFB Document 8 Filed 12/27/07 Page 2 of 5
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

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations Re: I.R.S. Summons Enforcement Page 3

the process server . . . simply to leave them in the defendant’s physical proximity, as Rule

4 guards the objective of giving notice to the party to be served.” Id. 

Based on the above findings, the court limits the application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 to

this action and holds that the steps taken by petitioners to serve respondent with process

were adequate under the present circumstances.

On the merits, 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). The court has reviewed the petition and documents in support. Based on the

uncontroverted verification of Revenue Officer Hartmann and the entire record, the court

makes the following findings:

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

Daniel E. Mahoney on July 6, 2007, seeking testimony and production of documents and

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

under I.R.C. § 7602, that is, to determine the federal income tax liabilities of Daniel E.

Mahoney for the years 2003, 2005, and 2006.

(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 exhibits 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, Daniel E. Mahoney, to rebut that prima facie

showing.

(8) Service of the Order to Show Cause and the Verified Petition and its Exhibits

upon respondent was legally sufficient.

Case 2:07-cv-02101-MCE -EFB Document 8 Filed 12/27/07 Page 3 of 5
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

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations Re: I.R.S. Summons Enforcement Page 4

(9) Respondent had actual notice of the Order to Show Cause hearing held on

December 5, 2007.

(10) Despite sufficient service and actual notice, respondent failed to file written

opposition, failed to appear at the hearing, and did nothing to rebut the prima facie

showing.

The court therefore recommends that the IRS summons issued to respondent,

Daniel E. Mahoney, 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 Hartmann or her designated representative, on the twenty-first day after the filing

date of the summons enforcement order, or at a later date and time to be set in writing by

the Revenue Officer, 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.

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. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998);

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).

////

////

////

Case 2:07-cv-02101-MCE -EFB Document 8 Filed 12/27/07 Page 4 of 5
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

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations Re: I.R.S. Summons Enforcement Page 5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve these findings and

recommendations and any future orders to Mr. Daniel E. Mahoney, at 12245 Dyer Court,

Auburn, CA 95603.

DATED: December 27, 2007

Case 2:07-cv-02101-MCE -EFB Document 8 Filed 12/27/07 Page 5 of 5