Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01334/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01334-4/pdf.json

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

---

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations 1

and 

Order Re: I.R.S. Summons Enforcement

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

30

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Petitioner,

v.

TERRI FURGISON-MAYALL, 

Respondent.

1:14-cv-01334-LJO-BAM

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND 

ORDER RE: I.R.S. SUMMONS 

ENFORCEMENT

Taxpayer:

TERRI FURGISON-MAYALL

This matter came on before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on February 13, 2015, under 

the Order to Show Cause filed October 8, 2014 (Doc. 10), and the Order Continuing Order to Show 

Cause Hearing filed November 26, 2014, (Doc. 12). The orders, with the verified petition filed August 

26, 2014, (Doc. 1), and its supporting memorandum, (Doc. 2-1), was served on Respondent via 

Respondent’s friend, Michelle Milton, at Respondent’s residence on December 4, 2014, and on 

Respondent via certified mail at Respondent’s last known address. (Docs. 13 and 14). Respondent did 

not file opposition or non-opposition to the verified petition as provided for in the Order to Show Cause. 

At the hearing, Bobbie J. Montoya, Assistant United States Attorney, appeared on behalf of Petitioner, 

and investigating Revenue Officer Evan D. Moses also was present in the courtroom. Respondent did 

not appear. 

The Verified Petition to Enforce IRS Summons initiating this proceeding seeks to enforce an 

administrative summons (Exhibit A to the petition) issued November 1, 2013. The summons is part of 

an investigation of the respondent to secure information needed to collect Form 1040 assessed federal 

income taxes for the tax years ending December 31, 2006, December 31, 2007, December 31, 2008, 

Case 1:14-cv-01334-LJO-BAM Document 18 Filed 03/02/15 Page 1 of 3
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations 2

and 

Order Re: I.R.S. Summons Enforcement

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

30

December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2010.

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

proper. I.R.C. §§ 7402(b) and 7604(a) (26 U.S.C.) authorize the government to bring the action. 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 verified 

petition by Revenue Officer Evan D. Moses and the entire record, I make the following findings:

(1) The summons issued by Revenue Officer Evan D. Moses on November 1, 2013, and served 

upon Respondent, on November 1, 2013, by attaching an attested copy of the summons to the door of 

her residence, 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 secure information 

needed to collect Form 1040 assessed federal income taxes for the tax years ending December 31, 2006, 

December 31, 2007, December 31, 2008, December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2010.

(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, Terri Furgison-Mayall, to rebut that prima facie showing.

(8) Respondent presented no argument or evidence to rebut the prima facie showing.

I therefore recommend that the IRS summons served upon Respondent be enforced; and that 

Respondent be ordered to appear at the I.R.S. offices at 2525 Capitol Street, Suite 205, Fresno, 

California, before Revenue Officer Moses or his designated representative, on the twenty-first (21st) day 

after the filing date of the District Judge’s summons enforcement order, or at a later date to be set in 

writing by Revenue Officer Moses, 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, 

Case 1:14-cv-01334-LJO-BAM Document 18 Filed 03/02/15 Page 2 of 3
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations 3

and 

Order Re: I.R.S. Summons Enforcement

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

30

the examination to continue from day to day until completed. It is further recommended that if it 

enforces the summons, the District Court retain jurisdiction to enforce its order by means of its contempt 

power.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned 

to the case, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of California. Within fourteen (14) 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 fourteen (14) 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).

THE CLERK SHALL SERVE this and further orders by mail to Terri Furgison-Mayall, 607 

Coventry Avenue, Clovis, California 93611.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01334-LJO-BAM Document 18 Filed 03/02/15 Page 3 of 3