Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01107/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01107-1/pdf.json

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

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

TAMARA W. ASHFORD

Acting Assistant Attorney General

BORIS KUKSO

Trial Attorney, Tax Division

U.S. Department of Justice

P.O. Box 683

Washington, D.C. 20044

202-353-1857 (v)

202-307-0054 (f)

Boris.Kukso@tax.usdoj.gov

Of Counsel:

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

JEFFREY D. BOHN, )

)

Respondent. )

)

)

)

_______________________________________)

Case No. 1:14-cv-1107---GSA

FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING I.R.S. SUMMONS

ENFORCEMENT

Taxpayer: JEFFREY D. BOHN

This matter came before Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on October 10, 2014, pursuant 

to the Order to Show Cause filed July 31, 2014. The Order to Show Cause, with the Petition to 

Enforce IRS Summons filed July 15, 2014, and its supporting declaration and exhibit, were 

served upon the respondent, Jeffrey D. Bohn (“Respondent”), on August 5, 2014. Docs. 5, 7. 

Boris Kukso, Trial Attorney for the Department of Justice Tax Division, telephonically appeared 

Case 1:14-cv-01107-KJM-GSA Document 11 Filed 11/03/14 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

on behalf of the United States (“Petitioner); investigating Revenue Officer Evan Moses was 

present in Court. Doc. 8. Respondent did not appear at the hearing. Doc. 8. Respondent also 

did not file any written opposition or non-opposition to the petition as provided for in the Order 

to Show Cause. Doc. 4. 

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

administrative summons (Exhibit 1 to the Petition) issued on May 15, 2014. Doc. 1-2. The 

summons was issued as part of an investigation into the Respondent‟s ability to pay his 

delinquent Form 1040 taxes for the tax years ending December 31, 2001, December 31, 2003, 

and December 31, 2007. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1340 and 1345. Furthermore, the Internal Revenue Code specifically authorizes

the United States to bring an action in district court to enforce a summons commanding a person 

to appear, to testify, or to produce books, papers, or other data, under the internal revenue laws. 

See 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402(b) and 7604(a).

In order to obtain enforcement of a summons, the United States must establish that the 

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

(3) seeks information that is not already within the possession of the Internal Revenue Service 

(“I.R.S.”); and (4) complies with all administrative steps required by the Internal Revenue Code. 

United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58 (1964). The Government's burden under Powell “is 

„a slight one‟ and typically is satisfied by the introduction of a sworn declaration of the revenue 

agent who issued the summons that the Powell requirements have been met.” Fortney v. United 

States, 59 F.3d 117, 120 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing United States v. Dynavac, Inc., 6 F.3d 1407, 

1414 (9th Cir. 1993); United States v. Gilleran, 992 F.2d 232, 233 (9th Cir. 1993)). Finally, 26 

Case 1:14-cv-01107-KJM-GSA Document 11 Filed 11/03/14 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

U.S.C. § 7602(d)(1) specifies that a summons may not be enforced “with respect to any person if 

a Justice Department referral is in effect with respect to such a person.” 

The Court has reviewed the Petition to Enforce IRS Summons, Revenue Officer Moses‟ 

declaration and the exhibit thereto. Revenue Officer Moses attests in his declaration that each of 

the applicable Powell factors is satisfied in this case and that no Justice Department referral, as 

defined by 26 U.S.C. § 7602(d)(2), is in effect with respect to the Respondent. Revenue Officer 

Moses also attested to these facts at the hearing on the Order to Show Cause.

Based on the entire record, the Court makes the following findings:

1. The summons issued by Revenue Officer Moses on May 15, 2014, and served 

upon respondent, Jeffrey D. Bohn, on that same date, seeking testimony and 

production of documents and records in Respondent‟s possession, was issued for 

a legitimate purpose, that is, to collect delinquent Form 1040 taxes for the tax 

years ending December 31, 2001, December 31, 2003, and December 31, 2007.

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. This case has not been referred by the Internal Revenue Service to the Department 

of Justice for criminal prosecution.

6. The Petition to Enforce, the declaration of Revenue Officer Moses, and the 

accompanying exhibit made a prima facie showing that the requirements of 

United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58 (1964) are satisfied.

Case 1:14-cv-01107-KJM-GSA Document 11 Filed 11/03/14 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

7. The burden shifted to Respondent to rebut that prima facie showing.

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

The undersigned therefore RECOMMENDS that the I.R.S. Summons served on 

Respondent Jeffrey D. Bohn be enforced; and that the Respondent be ordered to appear before 

I.R.S. Revenue Officer Evan Moses, or his designee, at the offices of the Internal Revenue 

Service located at 2525 Capitol St., Suite 205, Fresno, CA, 93721, on the twenty-first (21st) day 

after the filing of the District Judge‟s order enforcing the IRS Summons, or at a later date to be 

set in writing by Revenue Office Moses (and served on Respondent), 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. The undersigned RECOMMENDS that if it enforces the summons, the District 

Court retain jurisdiction to enforce its order pursuant to 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 

this Court. 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 shall be entitled "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and 

Recommendations." Any response to objections shall be served and filed within seven (7) 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 

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

Case 1:14-cv-01107-KJM-GSA Document 11 Filed 11/03/14 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

The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve this and all further orders by mail to 

Respondent Jeffrey D. Bohn at 957 N. Citadel Ave., Clovis, California, 93611.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01107-KJM-GSA Document 11 Filed 11/03/14 Page 5 of 5