Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01295/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01295-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mike Goode
Petitioner
Allan D. Tervort
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et )

al., )

)

Petitioners, )

v. )

)

ALLAN D. TERVORT, )

)

Respondent. )

)

 )

1:07-cv-01295-OWW-SMS

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE (DOC. 3)

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S

MOTIONS FOR CONTINUANCE, FOR

TRIAL BY JURY, AND ASSIGNMENT OF

DISTRICT JUDGE (DOCS. 9, 10, 11)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RE:

PETITION TO ENFORCE IRS SUMMONS

and MOTION TO DISMISS, (DOCS. 1,

8) 

Petitioners are proceeding with a civil action in this

Court. The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302(c)(9) and

72-303. Pending before the Court is a petition to enforce a

summons issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

On September 6, 2007, Petitioners United States of America

and revenue officer Mike Goode filed a petition to enforce an IRS

summons. Pursuant to Petitioners’ request, on September 19, 2007,

the Court issued an order to show cause (OSC) to Respondent to

appear and respond to the petition, which was served along with

the petition and associated documents on Respondent on September

27, 2007. The order required Respondent to serve his written

Case 1:07-cv-01295-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 12/07/07 Page 1 of 9
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

response within twenty-one days of service upon him of the OSC. 

Respondent failed to file his opposition timely; instead, on

October 29, 2007, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss.

Petitioners filed a reply on the same date.

Respondent filed a document on October 29, 2007, in which he

declined to consent to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge to

conduct all further proceedings in the case, including trial and

the entry of judgment. 

Petitioners replied on October 29, 2007, and requested that

the motion to dismiss be stricken as untimely; Petitioners also

argued on the merits that the motion was without merit.

On October 31, Respondent filed a motion for a trial by

jury.

On October 31, 2007, Respondent also moved a for a

continuance to allow the appointment of a new judge,

participation in the jury selection process, and discovery. No

specific date was prayed for, and no hearing date was noticed by

Respondent. 

On November 2, 2007, the hearing on the order to show cause

was held; a briefing schedule and a further hearing were set.

Thereafter, the Petitioners filed a reply on November 16, 2007,

and Respondent filed a brief and supplementary brief on November

21 and 27, respectively.

On November 30, 2007, the order to show cause, petition, and

motions to continue and jury trial came on for hearing at 9:41

a.m. in Courtroom 7 before the Honorable Sandra M. Snyder, United

States Magistrate Judge. Stephanie Borchers and IRS agent Mike

Goode appeared on behalf of Petitioners; Respondent appeared on

Case 1:07-cv-01295-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 12/07/07 Page 2 of 9
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

3

behalf of himself. After argument the matter was submitted to the

Court.

I. Discharging Order to Show Cause

Respondent having appeared pursuant to the order to show

cause, it IS ORDERED that the order to show cause BE DISCHARGED.

II. Motion for Continuance

As the following analysis will demonstrate, Respondent has

no right to a jury trial or the appointment of a District Judge;

further, there is no apparent need for discovery. Respondent was

given a substantial amount of time for briefing after the hearing

before Judge Beck. Finally, the Court notes that at the hearing

before the undersigned Magistrate Judge, Respondent did not

indicate any need for any further time with respect to the

pending petition or motion to dismiss. 

Accordingly, Respondent’s motion for a continuance IS

DENIED.

III. Motion for a Jury Trial

Respondent does not cite any binding authority in support of

his contention that he is entitled to a jury trial in this case.

It is established that the enforcement of a summons

generally is and should be a summary proceeding to which the

taxpayer has few defenses. United States v. Stuart, 489 U.S. 353,

369 (1989).

The Seventh Amendment provides that in all suits at common

law, where the controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right

of trial by jury shall be preserved. However, the Seventh

Amendment concerning the right to jury trial is interpreted to

refer to suits in which legal rights are to be ascertained and

Case 1:07-cv-01295-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 12/07/07 Page 3 of 9
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

4

determined, as distinct from suits in which equitable rights

alone are being recognized, and equitable remedies are being

administered. Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33, 41

(1989). A suit either to quash a summons or to enforce the

summons is equitable in nature; it is in essence a mandatory

injunction proceeding that is equitable in character which is

traditionally triable by a court alone without the aid of a jury.

Kennedy v. Rubin, 254 F.Supp. 190, 194 (D.C.Ill. 1966). Thus,

denial of a request or motion for a jury trial in a proceeding to

enforce an IRS summons is appropriate. Id. 

Further, the Respondent’s adversary is the federal

government, and it is established that the Seventh Amendment

right to trial by jury does not apply in actions against the

federal government. Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156, 160 (1981).

A plaintiff in an action against the United States has a right to

trial by jury only where Congress has affirmatively and

unambiguously granted that right by statute. Id. at 168. Although

in this instance the government is proceeding against the

Respondent, there is no provision in the governing statutes for a

jury trial in either this proceeding or in related proceedings

concerning motions by the taxpayer to quash such a summons, where

the person summoned would be asking for relief against the United

States.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Respondent’s motion

for a jury trial IS DENIED.

IV. Request for District Judge

Respondent declined to consent to a Magistrate Judge’s

presiding over this action. Respondent also asked for a

Case 1:07-cv-01295-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 12/07/07 Page 4 of 9
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

5

continuance for the appointment of a District Judge. At the

hearing, Respondent clarified that in so doing his intent was not

to accuse the undersigned of anything or to reflect on the Court;

rather, he had the option of choosing a District Judge or

Magistrate Judge, and he chose a District Judge.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, a

Magistrate Judge is authorized to hear and determine pretrial

matters that are not dispositive of a claim or defense; a

Magistrate Judge has no authority to hear and determine a motion

for injunctive relief. However, with respect to dispositive

matters or any matter as to which a Magistrate Judge lacks the

authority to determine, it is sufficient if the Magistrate’s

findings and recommendations are reviewed de novo by the District

Judge. See, Bhan v. NME Hospitals, Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1414 (9th

Cir. 1991).

Here, the undersigned Magistrate Judge has considered this

matter pursuant to Rule 72-302(c)(9) of the Local Rules of the

United States District Court, Eastern District of California,

which provides that duties to be performed by Magistrate Judges

in civil matters include petitions to enforce IRS summonses filed

pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402 and 7604(a). Pursuant to Local Rule

72-304, Respondent will have the opportunity to file objections. 

Accordingly, Respondent’s request or motion for a District

Judge IS DENIED.

V. Motion to Dismiss

Respondent contends that this Court lacks jurisdiction over

this matter because Petitioners have not “proven” jurisdiction.

The district courts have jurisdiction to order compliance

Case 1:07-cv-01295-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 12/07/07 Page 5 of 9
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

6

with a summons issued by the IRS to investigate a taxpayer’s

federal income tax liability. 26 U.S.C. §§ 7602, 7402(b),

7604(a); Church of Scientology of California v. United States,

506 U.S. 9, 12 n. 4 (1992); United States v. Derr, 968 F.2d 943,

945 (9 Cir. 1992). Section 7604(a) expressly provides that the th

district court of the district in which the person resides or is

found shall have jurisdiction by appropriate process to compel

attendance, testimony, or production in response to an internal

revenue service subpoena. 

Respondent admitted on the record at the hearing that he

resides at 6275 Holiday Avenue, Rosemond, California; the Court

takes judicial notice that Respondent thus resides within the

district. The Court may take judicial notice of facts that are

capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources

whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R. Evid.

201(b); United States v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 333 (9th

Cir. 1993). 

Further, notice or service of any of the documents is not in

issue; it appears that Respondent, who resides within the

district, received adequate notice of the proceedings.

Respondent contends that he is not a citizen of the United

States, as distinct from a citizen of any state. However, even if

that were true, Respondent has cited no authority, and the Court

is aware of none, that citizenship is any requirement of, or

defense to, an IRS subpoena. Respondent is a “person” within the

meaning of § 7604(a).

Respondent argues that he has never accepted the assignment

of a Social Security number because of religious convictions.

Case 1:07-cv-01295-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 12/07/07 Page 6 of 9
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

7

Again, the Court is not aware of any authority to the effect that

issuance of a Social Security number is required in order for a

taxpayer to be subject to a summons or to the jurisdiction of

this Court. 

The Court concludes that no further establishment of

jurisdiction is required. Accordingly, the Court rejects

Respondent’s challenge to this Court’s jurisdiction.

VI. Findings and Recommendation re: Petition to Enforce

 IRS Summons

To defeat a motion to quash, or to enforce an IRS summons,

the government has the initial burden of proving that the

summons: (1) is issued for a legitimate purpose; (2) seeks

information relevant to the purpose; (3) seeks information not

already within the IRS's possession; and (4) satisfies all of the

administrative steps required by the Internal Revenue Code.

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

government's burden is a slight one that may be satisfied by a

declaration from the investigating agent that these requirements

have been met. United States v. Abrahams, 905 F.2d 1276, 1280

(9th Cir.1990); Liberty Financial Servs. v. United States, 778

F.2d 1390, 1392 (9th Cir.1985). Once the prima facie case is

made, a heavy burden falls upon the taxpayer to show an abuse of

process, Abrahams, 905 F.2d at 1280; Liberty Financial, 778 F.2d

at 1392, or the lack of institutional good faith, Anaya, 815 F.2d

at 1377. United States v. Dynavac, Inc., 6 F.3d 1407, 1414 (9th

Cir. 1993).

Here, agent Goode declared that as a duly commissioned

revenue officer employed by the IRS, he was authorized to issue

Case 1:07-cv-01295-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 12/07/07 Page 7 of 9
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

8

the IRS summons pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7602; he did so in the

course of conducting an investigation to gather financial

information on Respondent to aid in the collection of his

assessed income tax for tax years 2001 through 2003; Goode was

informed and believed that Respondent had knowledge and documents

that would aid in carrying out the investigation and that were

not in the government’s possession; Respondent failed to comply

with the summons; and all administrative steps required by the

IRS had been undertaken.

Petitioners have thus established that the subpoena was

issued for a legitimate purpose and seeks information relevant to

the purpose that is not already within the IRS's possession;

further, it is demonstrated that all of the administrative steps

required by the Internal Revenue Code have been satisfied. A

prima facie case has been made. United States v. Dynavac, Inc., 6

F.3d 1407, 1414 (9 Cir. 1993). th

Respondent has not submitted any evidence of bad faith or

improper purpose. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that enforcement of the IRS

summons should be ordered.

VII. Recommendation

Accordingly, it IS RECOMMENDED that 

1) Respondent’s motion to dismiss BE DENIED; and

2) Petitioners’ petition to enforce the IRS summons BE

GRANTED; and

3) Respondent BE ORDERED to appear in obedience to the

summons on February 21, 2008, at 10:00 a.m. at the IRS office at

4825 Coffee Road, Bakersfield, California 93308.

Case 1:07-cv-01295-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 12/07/07 Page 8 of 9
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

9

This report and recommendation is submitted to the United

States District Court Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court,

Eastern District of California. Within thirty (30) days after

being served with a copy, 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.” Replies to the objections shall be served

and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served

by mail) after service of the objections. The Court will then

review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C). 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). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 5, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01295-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 12/07/07 Page 9 of 9