Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-mc-00043/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-mc-00043-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Glenn W. Gibson
Respondent
Richard Hague
Petitioner
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

McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

YOSHINORI H. T. HIMEL #66194

Assistant U. S. Attorney

501 I Street, Suite 10-100

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: (916) 554-2760

Attorneys for Petitioners

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and R.O. NORBERT SOPOLSKY

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and

NORBERT SOPOLSKY, Revenue

Officer, Internal Revenue Service,

Petitioners,

v.

GLENN W. GIBSON,

Respondent.

2:06-mc-00043-DFL-DAD

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS

AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE:

I.R.S. SUMMONS ENFORCEMENT

Taxpayer: Glenn W. Gibson

This matter came before me on June 16, 2006, under the Order to Show Cause filed

May 1, 2006, which, with the verified petition and exhibit, was personally served on the

respondent on May 10, 2006. Yoshinori H. T. Himel appeared for petitioners and moved

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d)(1) to replace former petitioning Revenue Officer Richard Hague,

who has retired, with Revenue Officer Norbert Sopolsky, who has replaced RO Hague on the

investigation, and who was present. No objection by respondent was made. Respondent did

not file an opposition but was present at the hearing.

The Verified Petition to Enforce Internal Revenue Service Summons initiating this

proceeding seeks to enforce an administrative summons in aid of Revenue Officer Norbert

Sopolsky’s investigation for tax collection for years 1996, 2000-01, and 2003 (Exhibit A to

the Petition). Subject matter jurisdiction is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1340 and 1345, and is

Case 2:06-mc-00043-DFL-DAD Document 8 Filed 07/10/06 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

27

28

2

found to be proper. Authorization for the action is under I.R.C. §§ 7402(b) and 7604(a). 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 Richard Hague and the entire record, I make the following

findings:

(1) The summons issued by Revenue Officer Richard Hague to respondent Glenn W.

Gibson on November 17, 2005, seeking testimony and production of documents and records

in respondent's possession, was in good faith and for a legitimate purpose under I.R.C.

§ 7602, that is, to determine financial information to aid in the collection of the duly assessed

and noticed tax liabilities of Glenn W. Gibson for the years 1996, 2000-01, and 2003.

(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 exhibit 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, Glenn W. Gibson, to rebut that prima facie

showing.

(8) Despite respondent’s appearance at the hearing, respondent presented no argument

or evidence to rebut the prima facie showing.

It is therefore the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that the IRS summons

issued to respondent, Glenn W. Gibson, be enforced, and that respondent be ordered to appear

at the I.R.S. offices at 4330 Watt Avenue, Sacramento, California, 95821, before Revenue

Officer Norbert Sopolsky or his designated representative, within twenty-one (21) days of the

Case 2:06-mc-00043-DFL-DAD Document 8 Filed 07/10/06 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

27

28

3

issuance of the Enforcement Order, or at a later date and time 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).

It is SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 7, 2006.

Ddad1/orders.civil/gibson0043.f&r

Case 2:06-mc-00043-DFL-DAD Document 8 Filed 07/10/06 Page 3 of 3