Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-mc-00004/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-mc-00004-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William Ryder
Plaintiff
Allen S. Turner
Defendant
United States of America
Plaintiff

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 RO WILLIAM RYDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and

WILLIAM RYDER, Revenue Officer,

Internal Revenue Service,

Petitioners,

v.

ALLEN S. TURNER,

Respondent.

2:06-mc-00004-FCD-PAN (JFM)

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS

AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE:

I.R.S. SUMMONS ENFORCEMENT

Taxpayer: ALLEN S. TURNER

This matter came before me on April 13, 2006, under the Order to Show Cause filed

February 2, 2006, which, with the verified petition and exhibit, was personally served on the

respondent on February 22, 2006. Yoshinori H. T. Himel appeared for petitioners, and

petitioning Revenue Officer William Ryder was present. 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 (Exhibit A to the Petition) in aid of

Revenue Officer William Ryder’s investigation for tax collection for the year 2000. Subject

matter jurisdiction is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1340 and 1345, and is found to be proper. 

Authorization for the action is under I.R.C. §§ 7402(b) and 7604(a). The Order to Show

Case 2:06-mc-00004-FCD-PAN Document 13 Filed 04/19/06 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

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 Ryder and the entire record, I make the following findings:

(1) The summons issued by Revenue Officer William Ryder to respondent Allen S.

Turner on January 27, 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 Allen S. Turner for the year 2000.

(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, Allen S. Turner, 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, Allen S. Turner, 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 William Ryder or his designated representative, on Thursday, May 18, 2006, at 11:00

a.m., 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,

Case 2:06-mc-00004-FCD-PAN Document 13 Filed 04/19/06 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

records, papers and other data demanded by the summons, the examination to continue from

day to day until completed. 

These findings and recommendation 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: April 18, 2006.

Case 2:06-mc-00004-FCD-PAN Document 13 Filed 04/19/06 Page 3 of 3