Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01443/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01443-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alma D. Sanders
Respondent
United States of America
Petitioner

Document Text:

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations 1

and Order Re: I.R.S. Summons Enforcement

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

30

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Petitioner,

v.

ALMA D. SANDERS, 

Respondent.

1:14-cv-01443-AWI-SKO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND ORDER RE: 

I.R.S. SUMMONS ENFORCEMENT

Taxpayer:

ALMA SANDERS

This matter came on before Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on November 5, 2014, 

pursuant to the Order to Show Cause filed September 29, 2014. The Order, with the verified 

petition filed September 15, 2014, and its supporting memorandum, was personally served on 

Respondent by delivery to her adult son at their residence on October 3, 2014. Respondent did 

not file an opposition or a non-opposition to the verified petition as provided for in the Order to 

Show Cause. At the hearing, Bobbie Montoya, Assistant United States Attorney, appeared 

telephonically for Petitioner on behalf of Yoshinori H.T. Himel, Assistant United States 

Attorney, and investigating Revenue Officer Evan D. Moses was present in the courtroom. 

Respondent appeared at the hearing and was accompanied by Dwayne Sanders. 

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

an administrative summons (Exhibit A to the petition) issued November 26, 2013. The 

summons is part of an investigation of the respondent to secure information needed to collect 

Form 1040 federal income taxes for tax years ending December 31, 2001, December 31, 2002, 

Case 1:14-cv-01443-AWI-SKO Document 9 Filed 11/19/14 Page 1 of 4
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations 2

and Order Re: I.R.S. Summons Enforcement

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

30

December 31, 2004, December 31, 2005, December 31, 2006, December 31, 2007, December 

31, 2008, December 31, 2009, December 31, 2010, and December 31, 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 documents in support. Based on the 

uncontroverted verified petition by Revenue Officer Evan D. Moses and the entire record, the 

Court makes the following findings:

(1) The summons issued by Revenue Officer Evan D. Moses on March 13, 2014, and 

served on March 14, 2014, 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 assessed federal income taxes 

(Form 1040) for tax years ending December 31, 2001, December 31, 2002, December 31, 2004, 

December 31, 2005, December 31, 2006, December 31, 2007, December 31, 2008, December 

31, 2009, December 31, 2010, and December 31, 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.

(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 of satisfaction of 

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

(7) The burden shifted to respondent, Alma D. Sanders, to rebut that prima facie 

showing.

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

Case 1:14-cv-01443-AWI-SKO Document 9 Filed 11/19/14 Page 2 of 4
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations 3

and Order Re: I.R.S. Summons Enforcement

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

30

(9) Respondent agreed with the Revenue Officer, and stated her agreement in open court, 

to produce the documentary information sought in the summons to RO Moses on or before 

December 3, 2014, and to appear by telephone on December 10, 2014, at 11:00 a.m., by calling 

the direct line of RO Moses (559-443-7636), or his designated representative. Respondent is 

hereby ordered to make that document production and that telephonic appearance.

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

enforced; and that Respondent be ordered to comply with the summons by producing the 

documentary information sought in the summons to RO Moses on or before December 3, 2014, 

and to appear by telephone on December 10, 2014, at 11:00 a.m., as agreed to by RO Moses and 

Respondent Sanders at the show cause hearing, then and there to be sworn, to give testimony, 

and to produce for examining and copying the books, checks, records, paper and other data 

demanded by the summons, the examination to continue from day to day until completed. 

Should the December 10th telephonic appearance need to be continued or rescheduled, the 

appearance is to be set in writing for a later date by RO Moses. The Court further recommends

that if it enforces the summons, the Court retain jurisdiction to enforce its order by its contempt 

power.

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

assigned to the case, under 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).

Case 1:14-cv-01443-AWI-SKO Document 9 Filed 11/19/14 Page 3 of 4
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations 4

and Order Re: I.R.S. Summons Enforcement

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

30

THE CLERK SHALL SERVE this and further orders by mail to Alma D. Sanders, 6356 

N. Palm Avenue, Fresno, CA 93704-1440.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01443-AWI-SKO Document 9 Filed 11/19/14 Page 4 of 4