Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-mc-00006/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-mc-00006-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rebecca Ayotte
Petitioner
Cindy L. Barnes
Respondent
United States of America
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Petitioners, MISC. NO. S-06-0006 DFL GGH

vs.

CINDY L. BARNES, FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Respondent.

___________________________________/

The United States has filed a petition to enforce a tax summons against the above

referenced respondent. On February 1, 2006, this court issued an order to show cause for

respondent to appear on April 13, 2006, and explain why she should not be compelled to obey

the Internal Revenue Service summons issued on September 2, 2005. There was no response to

the order to show cause. Respondent also did not file a defense or opposition. Therefore, the

matter was submitted without a hearing.

The Ninth Circuit has summarized the well established and frequently referred to 

requirements for enforcement of an IRS summons:

To obtain enforcement of a summons, the IRS must first establish

its ‘good faith’ 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 within the IRS’

possession; and (4) satisfies all administrative steps required by the

United States Code. United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58,

85 S. Ct. 248, 254-55 (1964). The government’s burden is “a

slight one” and typically is satisfied by the introduction of the

sworn statement of the revenue agent who issued the summons

Case 2:06-mc-00006-DFL-GGH Document 9 Filed 06/05/06 Page 1 of 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

 Even a secondary purpose by the Service in seeking the requested material does not 1

defeat the Service’s assertions. Tiffany Fine Arts, Inc. v. United States, 469 U.S. 310, 105 S. Ct.

725 (1985) (dual purpose); United States v. La Salle National Bank, 437 U.S. 298, 98 S. Ct. 2357

(1978) (even an illegitimate secondary purpose will not preclude enforcement in light of a

legitimate purpose).

2

declaring that the Powell requirements have been met. 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). Once a prima

facie case is made a ‘heavy’ burden is placed on the taxpayer to

show an ‘abuse of process’ or ‘the lack of institutional good faith.’ 

Dynavac, 6 F.3d at 1414.

Fortney v. United States, 59 F.3d 117, 119 (9th Cir.1995); Ponsford v. United States 771 F.2d

1305, 1307, 1308 (9th Cir.1985); Liberty Financial Services v. United States, 778 F.2d 1390,

1392 (9th Cir.1985).

Revenue Officer Ayotte states that the purpose of the summons at issue is to

conduct an investigation “of Cindy L. Barnes to determine financial information for the

collection of assessed income tax for the years ending December 31, 1997, December 31, 1998,

and December 31, 2001.” The summons requests documents for the period “January 1, 2004 to

to [sic] date of full compliance with this summons ...” Such an investigation is a legitimate use

of the summons power of § 7602. The other Powell requirements have also been met in this

1

case, as noted by this court in the OSC, filed February 1, 2006. 

Based on the foregoing principles, and an examination of the United States'

petition, the Verification of Revenue Officer Rebecca Ayotte, and the entire record in this case

the Court finds as follows:

1. The United States has established its case for enforcement of the IRS summons

issued to Cindy L. Barnes;

2. The summons was issued for a legitimate purpose, it seeks information that

may be relevant to that purpose, and seeks information not already in the government’s

possession;

Case 2:06-mc-00006-DFL-GGH Document 9 Filed 06/05/06 Page 2 of 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

3

3. The summons was issued in conformation with the administrative steps

required by the Internal Revenue Code;

4. The United States’ petition in this matter, along with the verification of

Revenue Officer Rebecca Ayotte and the court’s February 1, 2006 order to show cause were

personally served on respondent Cindy L. Barnes.

5. Respondent has presented no defense or opposition to the United States’

petition, as mandated by paragraph 6 of the court’s February 1, 2006 order to show cause. 

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the United States’ petition for

enforcement of the IRS summons at issue in the case be GRANTED and that the summons be

enforced. 

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)(l). Within twenty

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 captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. 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). 

DATED: 6/2/06 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

__________________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076

Barnes0006.IRS.wpd

Case 2:06-mc-00006-DFL-GGH Document 9 Filed 06/05/06 Page 3 of 3