Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-mc-00133/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-mc-00133-1/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

DAVID LARSEN, Revenue Officer,

Internal Revenue Service,

Petitioners,

v.

KARLA HARMER, 

Respondent.

2:07-mc-00133-MCE-DAD

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDINGS

AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE:

I.R.S. SUMMONS ENFORCEMENT

Taxpayer: SIERRA TOTAL

DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT

This matter came before me on February 8, 2008, under the Order to Show Cause

filed December 11, 2007, which, with the verified petition and exhibits, was effectively

served on respondent in January 2008. Yoshinori H. T. Himel appeared for petitioners,

and petitioning Revenue Officer David Larsen was present. Respondent neither filed

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 Larsen’s investigation for determination of respondent's financial

information for the collection of assessed tax for Employer’s Quarterly Federal tax

returns for the tax periods ending June 30, 2006, September 30, 2006, December 31,

2006; and Employer’s Annual Unemployment tax return for the year ending December

Case 2:07-mc-00133-MCE -DAD Document 8 Filed 02/19/08 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

31, 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.).

On the subject of process service, the declarations of Revenue Officer Martha C.

Aguirre filed February 4, 2008, and February 14, 2008, state that the address for Karla

Harmer at 5222 Cosumnes Drive, Apartment 232, in Stockton, California, was verified by

the apartment complex office. The occupant of the address was asked twice whether she

was respondent Karla Harmer. The occupant did not deny that she was respondent, and

requested that the documents be mailed. Two sets of the documents were mailed to the

address and an additional set of documents was fastened to the front door of the

apartment. 

I find that respondent attempted to refuse service despite petitioners' diligence in

attempting to serve her with process. I find that the steps taken to serve respondent were

reasonably calculated to give her actual notice and that they did give her actual notice of

the proceedings.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(a)(5) makes Fed. R. Civ. P. 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." 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). The

Order to Show Cause limited the application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 to this action. Based on

the above facts, I find that the steps taken by petitioners to serve respondent with process

were adequate under the 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). I have reviewed the petition and documents in support. Based on the

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

following findings:

Case 2:07-mc-00133-MCE -DAD Document 8 Filed 02/19/08 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

(1) The summons issued by Revenue Officer David Larsen to respondent Karla

Harmer on September 9, 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 financial information for the collection of

assessed and delinquent taxes of Sierra Total Document Management, namely, taxes for

Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Returns for the tax periods ending June 30, 2006,

September 30, 2006, December 31, 2006; and for an Employer’s Annual Unemployment

Tax Return for the year ending December 31, 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, Karla Harmer, 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.

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

February 8, 2008.

(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.

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

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

Case 2:07-mc-00133-MCE -DAD Document 8 Filed 02/19/08 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

4643 Quail Lakes Drive, Suite 102, Stockton, California, 95207, before Revenue Officer

David Larsen or his 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 recommendations 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).

The Clerk shall serve this and future court notices, findings and orders by mail to

Ms. Karla Harmer, at 5222 Cosumnes Drive, Apartment 232, Stockton, CA 95219.

DATED: February 15, 2008.

Ddad1/orders.civil/harmer0133.f&r

Case 2:07-mc-00133-MCE -DAD Document 8 Filed 02/19/08 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

Page 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL

The undersigned hereby certifies that she is an employee in the Office of the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of

California and is a person of such age and discretion to be competent to serve papers.

That on February 15, 2008, she served a copy of:

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE: I.R.S. SUMMONS ENFORCEMENT

by placing said copy in an envelope addressed to the persons hereinafter named, at the places and addresses shown below, which are the last

known addresses, and mailing said envelope and contents in the U.S. Mail in Sacramento, California.

Addressees:

Ms. Karla Harmer

5222 Cosumnes Drive

Apartment 232

Stockton, CA 95219

 /s/ Mary Ann Rackley 

MARY ANN RACKLEY

Case 2:07-mc-00133-MCE -DAD Document 8 Filed 02/19/08 Page 5 of 5