Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01663/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01663-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James W Ingram
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,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES W INGRAM,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01663-AWI-SAB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING THAT PETITION TO 

ENFORCE IRS SUMMONS BE GRANTED

(ECF No. 1)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN 

DAYS 

Currently before the Court is Petitioner United States of America’s petition to enforce an 

Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) summons on November 2, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) For the 

reasons set forth below, the Court recommends that Petitioner’s petition to enforce the IRS 

summons be granted.

I.

BACKGROUND

The petition alleges that Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) Revenue Officer Danielle 

Moser is conducting an investigation of Respondent James W. Ingram concerning individual 

federal income taxes for years ending December 31, 2009, December 31, 2013, and December 

31, 2014. On January 27, 2016, Ms. Moser issued two IRS summonses directing Respondent to 

testify and produce certain documents related to the investigation on February 24, 2016 at the 

Case 1:16-cv-01663-AWI-SAB Document 14 Filed 02/16/17 Page 1 of 4
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

IRS’s office in Fresno, California. On January 27, 2016, Ms. Moser left a copy of the 

summonses at the last and usual place of abode for Respondent, 1744 E. Caldwell Ave., Visalia, 

CA 93292. Respondent did not appear on February 24, 2016, or otherwise respond to the 

summonses.

On November 2, 2016, the instant petition was filed to enforce the IRS summonses. On 

November 7, 2016, an order issued requiring Respondent to show cause why he should not be 

compelled to obey the IRS summonses issued on January 27, 2016. On January 12, 2017, a 

certificate of service was filed showing that Respondent was personally served on January 11, 

2017. Respondent has not responded to the November 7, 2016 order.

II.

LEGAL STANDARDS

Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7602, the IRS has authority to issue summonses to investigate tax 

returns and tax liabilities. Enforcement of IRS summonses is governed by 26 U.S.C. § 7604, 

which states, in pertinent part:

Whenever any person summoned under section 6420(e)(2), 6421(g)(2), 

6427(j)(2), or 7602 neglects or refuses to obey such summons, or to produce 

books, papers, records, or other data, or to give testimony, as required, the 

Secretary may apply to the judge of the district court or to a United States 

commissioner for the district within which the person so summoned resides or is 

found for an attachment against him as for a contempt. It shall be the duty of the 

judge or commissioner to hear the application, and, if satisfactory proof is made, 

to issue an attachment, directed to some proper officer, for the arrest of such 

person, and upon his being brought before him to proceed to a hearing of the case; 

and upon such hearing the judge or the United States commissioner shall have 

power to make such order as he shall deem proper, not inconsistent with the law 

for the punishment of contempts, to enforce obedience to the requirements of the 

summons and to punish such person for his default or disobedience.

26 U.S.C. 7604(b). Jurisdiction of this Court to enforce summonses is expressly provided under 

26 U.S.C. § 7402(b) and 7602(a). In issuing an IRS summons:

...the [government] need not meet any standard of probable cause to obtain 

enforcement of his summons, either before or after the three-year statute of 

limitations on ordinary tax liabilities has expired. He must show that the 

investigation will be conducted pursuant to a legitimate purpose, that the inquiry 

may be relevant to the purpose, that the information sought is not already within 

the Commissioner’s possession, and that the administrative steps required by the 

Code have been followed....

Case 1:16-cv-01663-AWI-SAB Document 14 Filed 02/16/17 Page 2 of 4
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

U.S. v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58 (1964). “The government’s burden is a slight one, and may 

be satisfied by a declaration from the investigating agent that the Powell requirements have been 

met.” U.S. v. Dynavac, Inc., 6 F.3d 1407, 1414 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing U.S. v. Abrahams, 905 

F.2d 1276, 1280 (9th Cir. 1990); Liberty Financial Servs. v. U.S., 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 ... or lack of institutional good faith.” Id. (citations omitted). “The burden [on 

the government] is minimal ‘because the statute must be read broadly in order to ensure that the 

enforcement powers of the IRS are not unduly restricted.’” Crystal v. U.S., 172 F.3d 1141, 1144 

(9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Liberty Fin. Servs. v. U.S., 778 F.2d 1390, 1392 (9th Cir. 1985)).

III.

DISCUSSION

“A prima facie case of good faith typically is made through the introduction of the sworn 

declaration of the revenue agent who issued the summons.” United States v. Gilleran, 992 F.2d 

232, 233 (9th Cir. 1993). In this instance, Ms. Moser has submitted a declaration stating that the 

purpose of the investigation is to investigate Respondent’s tax liabilities for the taxable years 

ending in December 2009, December 2013, and December 2014. The material sought is not 

already in the possession of the IRS and is necessary to determine the existence and amounts of 

tax liabilities for the taxable years ending in December 2009, December 2013, and December 

2014. 

Ms. Moser stated that she was authorized to issue the summonses and all the requisite 

administrative steps required by the Internal Revenue Code for issuance of the summonses has 

been taken. Petitioner has met its burden of meeting the Powell requirements and the Court finds 

that the IRS summonses were issued for the legitimate purpose of investigating Respondent’s tax 

liabilities. 

As Respondent has not challenged the issuance of the summonses, he has not met his 

burden to show an abuse of process or a lack of institutional good faith. Dynavac, Inc., 6 F.3d at

1414. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the petition to enforce the IRS summonses be 

granted.

Case 1:16-cv-01663-AWI-SAB Document 14 Filed 02/16/17 Page 3 of 4
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

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Petitioner’s petition to enforce the IRS summons be GRANTED; and

2. The United States is directed to promptly serve a copy of this findings and 

recommendations on Respondent and to file a proof of service with the Court.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this 

action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within fourteen 

(14) days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these 

findings and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document 

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The 

district judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified 

time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th 

Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 16, 2017 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01663-AWI-SAB Document 14 Filed 02/16/17 Page 4 of 4