Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00326/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00326-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard Rodriguez
Respondent
United States of America
Petitioner

Document Text:

1 Findings and Recommendations Re: I.R.S. Summons 

Enforcement; Order

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

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

YOSHINORI H. T. HIMEL #66194

Assistant United States Attorney

Eastern District of California

501 I Street, Suite 10-100

Sacramento, CA 95814-2322

Telephone: (916) 554-2760

Facsimile: (916) 554-2900

email: yoshinori.himel@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Petitioner United States of America

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Petitioner,

v.

RICHARD RODRIGUEZ, 

Respondent.

1:14-cv-00326-LJO-GSA

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RE: I.R.S. SUMMONS ENFORCEMENT

Taxpayer:

RICHARD RODRIGUEZ

This matter came before Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on May 9, 2014, under the 

Order to Show Cause filed March 10, 2014. The Order to Show Cause, with the Verified 

Petition to Enforce I.R.S. Summons filed March 6, 2014 and its supporting memorandum, was 

personally served upon the respondent, Richard Rodriguez, on March 18, 2014. Respondent did 

not file a written opposition or a notice of non-opposition to the verified petition as provided for 

in the Order to Show Cause. Yoshinori H. T. Himel, Assistant United States Attorney, appeared 

on behalf of Petitioner, and investigating Revenue Officer Lorena Ramos was also present. 

Respondent did not appear at the scheduled hearing. 

Case 1:14-cv-00326-DAD-EPG Document 8 Filed 06/03/14 Page 1 of 4
2 Findings and Recommendations Re: I.R.S. Summons 

Enforcement; Order

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

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

an administrative summons (Exhibit A to the petition) issued May 28, 2013. The summons is 

part of an investigation of the respondent to secure information needed to collect Form 1040 

assessed federal income taxes for the tax year ending December 31, 2007, and civil penalties for 

the quarterly tax periods ending June 30, 2008, September 30, 2008, December 31, 2008, March 

31, 2009, June 30, 2009, September 30, 2009, December 31, 2009, March 31, 2010, June 30, 

2010, September 30, 2010, December 31, 2010, March 31, 2011, June 30, 2011, and September 

30, 2011.

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

be proper. I.R.C. §§ 7402(b) and 7604(a) (26 U.S.C.) authorize the government to bring the 

action. 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).

The Court has reviewed the petition and supporting documents. Based on the 

uncontroverted verified petition by Revenue Officer Lorena Ramos and the entire record, the 

Court makes the following findings:

(1) The summons issued by Revenue Officer Lorena Ramos on May 28, 2013, and served 

upon respondent, Richard Rodriguez, on May 28, 2013, seeking testimony and production of 

documents and records in respondent’s possession, was issued in good faith and for a legitimate 

purpose under I.R.C. § 7602, that is, to secure information needed to collect Form 1040 assessed 

federal income taxes for the tax year ending December 31, 2007, and civil penalties for the 

quarterly tax periods ending June 30, 2008, September 30, 2008, December 31, 2008, March 31, 

2009, June 30, 2009, September 30, 2009, December 31, 2009, March 31, 2010, June 30, 2010, 

September 30, 2010, December 31, 2010, March 31, 2011, June 30, 2011, and September 30, 

2011.

(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.

Case 1:14-cv-00326-DAD-EPG Document 8 Filed 06/03/14 Page 2 of 4
3 Findings and Recommendations Re: I.R.S. Summons 

Enforcement; Order

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) 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 exhibits made a prima facie showing in satisfaction of the 

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

(7) The burden shifted to respondent, Richard Rodriguez, to rebut that prima facie 

showing.

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

The Court therefore recommends that the IRS summons served upon Respondent, 

Richard Rodriguez, be enforced, and that Respondent be ordered to appear at the I.R.S. offices 

at 2525 Capitol Street, Suite 206, Fresno, California, before Revenue Officer Lorena Ramos or 

her designated representative, on the twenty-first (21st) day after the filing date of the District 

Judge’s summons enforcement order, or at a later date to be set in writing by Revenue Officer 

Ramos, 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. It is further recommended that if it 

enforces the summons, the District Court should retain jurisdiction to enforce its order by means 

of its contempt power.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to this case pursuant to 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 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).

Case 1:14-cv-00326-DAD-EPG Document 8 Filed 06/03/14 Page 3 of 4
4 Findings and Recommendations Re: I.R.S. Summons 

Enforcement; Order

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

THE CLERK SHALL SERVE this and further orders by mail to Richard Rodriguez, 

7233 W. Browning, Fresno, California 93723.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 3, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00326-DAD-EPG Document 8 Filed 06/03/14 Page 4 of 4