Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-04413/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-04413-3/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and

DJ BENNETT, Revenue Officer,

Petitioners, No. C 06-4413 PJH

v. ORDER OF CONTEMPT

SERGIO RODRIGUEZ,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

This matter came before the court for hearing on March 21, 2007, upon the court’s

Order to Show Cause Re Contempt entered on January 24, 2007. Thomas Moore and

Kelsey Arnold appeared on behalf of the United States and Sergio Rodriquez (“Rodriquez”)

appeared on his own behalf.

On September 20, 2006, the court entered an Order Granting Petition to Enforce

Internal Revenue Service Summons (“Order Enforcing Summons”), which ordered

Rodriquez to provide documents and give testimony on those documents in compliance

with a valid summons issued by the United States. Rodriquez did not comply with that

order and the United States applied for an Order to Show Cause Re Contempt. On

January 24, 2007, the court ordered Rodriquez to appear on March 21, 2007 to show

cause why he should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with the court’s

September 20, 2006 order enforcing summons.

Rodriquez did not respond to the order to show cause in writing but did appear for

the hearing on March 21, 2007. Although Rodriquez has been “working on” trying to

complete the tax returns required by the summons, he had no excuse for failing to provide

the other documents or his testimony on those documents. Accordingly, the court found by

Case 4:06-cv-04413-PJH Document 27 Filed 03/22/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

clear and convincing evidence that Rodriquez violated the September 20, 2006 order

enforcing summons; that his violation did not constitute substantial compliance with the

order; and that the violation was not based on a good faith and reasonable interpretation of

the order. United States v. Ayres, 166 F.3d 991, 994 (9th Cir. 1999). Accordingly,

Rodriquez was adjudged in contempt of this court.

The court having found Rodriquez in contempt, it is hereby ordered

1. That Rodriquez shall meet with an IRS agent to produce the summoned

documents and give testimony concerning those documents within 10 days of

the date of the hearing.

2. That Rodriquez shall produce correct copies of his tax returns currently in

possession of his tax preparer within 30 days of the date of the hearing.

3. If Rodriquez meets both of these deadlines, he will be purged of any further

penalty for his contempt.

4. If Rodriquez fails to meet either of these deadlines, a daily penalty of $500 will

be imposed for each day that he is not in compliance. Upon the thirtieth day

of non-compliance, the United States may petition the court for a further

hearing on this matter for the purpose of seeking a larger or different penalty

for the non-compliance.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 22, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-04413-PJH Document 27 Filed 03/22/07 Page 2 of 2