Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-00373/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-00373-1/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

** E-filed April 2, 2010 ** 

NOT FOR CITATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and 

DELMA MITCHELL, Revenue Officer, 

 Petitioners, 

 v. 

VU H. LE, 

 

 Respondent. 

____________________________________/

No. C10-00373 

ORDER THAT CASE BE 

REASSIGNED TO A DISTRICT 

COURT JUDGE 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

[Re: Docket No. 1] 

This matter is before the court on an order to show cause why respondent Vu H. Le should 

not be required to appear before the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) in compliance with an IRS 

summons. Le did not file any papers in response to the order to show cause or appear at the March 

30, 2010 hearing. Because respondent has not consented to proceed before a magistrate judge, the 

undersigned has prepared a report and recommendation as to the instant petition and directs the 

Clerk of the Court to reassign this case to a District Judge. Having considered the moving papers 

and all other evidence of record, this court recommends that the petition be GRANTED. 

BACKGROUND 

According to the petition, the IRS is conducting an investigation as part of a collection effort 

for certain tax liabilities of respondent. (Pet. ¶ 3.) Petitioners believe that respondent has 

possession and control of records, paper, and other data concerning the IRS’s inquiry, as to which 

the IRS has no access, possession, or control. (Id. ¶ 5.) As part of its investigation, petitioners 

Case 5:10-cv-00373-JW Document 8 Filed 04/02/10 Page 1 of 5
2 

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

served a summons on respondent; the record before the court shows that service properly was made 

pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7603.1

 On November 4, 2009, petitioner Mitchell served a summons on 

respondent by leaving a copy of the summons at his last and usual place of abode. (Id. ¶ 6 & Ex. 

A.) Respondent did not appear on November 20, 2009 as requested. Petitioner provided respondent 

with another opportunity to appear and comply on December 30, 2009. He did not do so. (Id. 

¶¶ 8−10 & Ex. B.) 

On January 27, 2010, petitioners filed the instant verified petition to enforce the summons. 

On February 2, 2010, this court issued an order to show cause setting a hearing for March 30, 2010. 

Petitioners have submitted evidence showing that the order to show cause and verified petition were 

personally served on respondent on February 5, 2010. (Docket No. 5) However, Le never filed a 

written response to the order to show cause or the verified petition. Nor did he appear at the March 

30, 2010 hearing on this matter. 

DISCUSSION 

Under 26 U.S.C. § 7602(a), the IRS is authorized to issue a summons relevant to the 

investigation of any taxpayer’s liability. Summons may be issued for the purposes of “ascertaining 

the correctness of any return, making a return where none has been made, determining the liability 

of any person for any internal revenue tax or . . . collecting any such liability.” 26 U.S.C. § 7602(a). 

To enforce a summons, the IRS must establish a prima facie case for enforcement by showing that 

the summons (1) is issued for a legitimate purpose, (2) seeks information relevant to that purpose, 

(3) seeks information that is not already in the IRS’s possession, and (4) satisfies all of the 

administrative steps set forth in the Internal Revenue Code. United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 

57–58 (1964). “The government’s burden is a slight one, and may be satisfied by a declaration from 

the investigating agent that the Powell requirements have been met.” United States v. Dynavac, 

Inc., 6 F.3d 1407, 1414 (9th Cir. 1993). The purpose of this minimal burden is to “ensure that the 

/// 

 

1

 Title 26 United States Code, Section 7603 provides that service of summons shall 

be made “by an attested copy delivered in hand to the person to whom it is directed, or left 

at his last and usual place of abode.” 26 U.S.C. § 7603(a). Further, “the certificate of 

service signed by the person serving the summons shall be evidence of the facts it states on 

the hearing of an application for the enforcement of the summons.” Id. 

Case 5:10-cv-00373-JW Document 8 Filed 04/02/10 Page 2 of 5
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

enforcement powers of the IRS are not unduly restricted.” Liberty Fin. Servs. v. United States, 778 

F.2d 1390, 1392 (9th Cir. 1985). 

Once the government has met its burden in establishing the Powell elements, if the taxpayer 

chooses to challenge the enforcement, he bears a heavy burden to show an abuse of process or lack 

of good faith on the part of the IRS. Indeed, “[e]nforcement of a summons is generally a summary 

proceeding to which a taxpayer has few defenses.” United States v. Derr, 968 F.2d 943, 945 (9th 

Cir. 1992). “ ‘The taxpayer must allege specific facts and evidence to support his allegations’ of 

bad faith or improper purpose.” Crystal v. United States, 172 F.3d 1141, 1144 (9th Cir. 1999) 

(quoting United States v. Jose, 131 F.3d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir. 1997)). 

While the government’s burden is not great, it is not necessarily satisfied by an agent’s mere 

assertion of relevance. United States v. Goldman, 637 F.2d 664, 667 (9th Cir. 1980). Once a 

summons is challenged, the court must scrutinize the summons to determine whether it seeks 

information relevant to a legitimate investigative purpose, and the court may choose either to refuse 

enforcement or narrow the scope of the summons. Id. at 668. 

In the instant case, petitioners have met their initial burden of showing that the Powell

elements have been satisfied, largely through the verification of the petition by Revenue Officer 

Mitchell. See Crystal, 172 F.3d at 1144 (finding that the special agent’s declaration satisfied the 

Powell requirements and that the government therefore “established a prima facie case to enforce 

the summonses”); Dynavac, Inc., 6 F.3d at 1414 (stating that the government’s burden “may be 

satisfied by a declaration from the investigating agent that the Powell requirements have been met”); 

United States v. Bell, 57 F. Supp. 2d 898, 906 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (“The government usually makes the 

requisite prima facie showing by affidavit of the agent.”). 

Here, the verified petition indicates that the IRS’s investigation is being conducted for the 

legitimate purpose of ascertaining respondent’s tax liabilities for certain years to prepare a 

Collection Information Statement. (Pet. ¶¶ 3.) The summons is relevant to that purpose; it asks Le 

to appear and bring with him documents pertaining to his assets and liabilities (e.g., bank 

statements, checkbooks, canceled checks, saving account passbooks, records or certificates of 

deposit, current vehicle registration certificates, deeds or contracts regarding real property, stocks 

Case 5:10-cv-00373-JW Document 8 Filed 04/02/10 Page 3 of 5
4 

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

and bonds, accounts, notes and judgments receivable, and all life or health insurance policies). (Id.

Ex. A.) The petition further indicates that the information is not already in the IRS’s possession, 

that there has been no referral for criminal prosecution of this matter, and that all administrative 

steps required by the Internal Revenue Code for the issuance of the summons have been taken. (Pet. 

¶¶ 5, 7, 11–12 & Exs. A, B.) 

Although the record presented demonstrates that respondent was served with notice of these 

proceedings, he failed to respond at all to the verified petition or the court’s order to show cause. 

Accordingly, he has not met his burden of showing an abuse of process or lack of good faith on the 

part of the IRS, and this court recommends that the verified petition to enforce the IRS summons be 

granted. 

RECOMMENDATION 

Based on the foregoing, this court recommends that the petition be granted and that an order 

be issued enforcing the IRS summons and directing Le to appear before the IRS on a date 

approximately thirty days from the date of the court’s order to provide testimony and produce the 

requested documents and records. 

Petitioners are instructed to serve promptly a copy of this report and recommendation on 

respondent and to file a proof of service with the court. Any party may file objections to this report 

and recommendation with the district judge within fourteen days after being served with a copy. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); N.D. Cal. Civ. R. 72-3. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 2, 2010 

HOWARD R. LLOYD 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:10-cv-00373-JW Document 8 Filed 04/02/10 Page 4 of 5
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

C10-00373 HRL Notice will be electronically mailed to: 

Blake D. Stamm blake.d.stamm2@usdoj.gov 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not 

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program. 

 

Case 5:10-cv-00373-JW Document 8 Filed 04/02/10 Page 5 of 5