Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00258/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00258-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jean Annette Liascos
Defendant
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 Petitioner, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Petitioner,

v.

JEAN ANNETTE LIASCOS,

Respondent.

1:05cv258 REC DLB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

RE: TAX SUMMONS ENFORCEMENT 

Taxpayer: Bakersfield Properties & Trust Co.

DATE: June 17, 2005

TIME: See below

CTRM: 5 (3rd Fl., DLB)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Petitioner,

v.

LORNE McCAN,

Respondent.

1:05cv285 REC DLB

Taxpayers: Aligned Enterprises Trust and

Alpha Omega Trust

DATE: June 17, 2005

TIME: See below

CTRM: 5 (3rd Fl., DLB)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Petitioner,

v.

V. STEVEN BOOTH and LOUISE Q.

BOOTH,

Respondents.

1:05cv290 REC DLB

Taxpayers: V. Steven Booth and Louise Q.

Booth, Aligned Enterprises Trust, Alpha

Omega Trust, and San Joaquin Wellness and

Medical Group

DATE: June 17, 2005

TIME: See below

CTRM: 5 (3rd Fl., DLB)

Case 1:05-cv-00258-REC-DLB Document 22 Filed 05/10/05 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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Petitioner,

v.

JOHN INNIS, JR.,

Respondent.

1:05cv302 REC DLB

Taxpayers: V. Steven Booth and Louise Q.

Booth

DATE: June 17, 2005

TIME: See below

CTRM: 5 (3rd Fl., DLB)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

These cases came before the Court on Orders to Show Cause on May 6, 2005. Each of

the respondents was personally served with the respective Petition and Order to Show Cause,

and each appeared by the timely filing of several writings objecting to enforcement. At the

hearing, Yoshinori H. T. Himel appeared for petitioners, and Revenue Agent Fred Chynoweth

was present in the courtroom. Respondents did not appear. 

The Petitions to Enforce Internal Revenue Service Summonses initiating these

proceedings seek to enforce various administrative summonses in aid of Revenue Agent

Chynoweth’s investigation for tax determination. The Orders 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 petitions and documents in support of tax summons

enforcement, the papers opposing enforcement, and the petitioner’s reply. In addition, the

Revenue Agent provided testimony at the hearing regarding respondents’ noncompliance with

the summonses when certain of them appeared before him. Based on the uncontroverted

declarations of Revenue Agent Chynoweth, the parties’ briefs, the hearing, and the entire

record, the Court makes the following findings:

(1) This Court has statutory subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1340 and

1345 and 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402 and 7604. A case or controversy exists.

(2) There is no evidence of fraud by the United States or its employees.

(3) The summonses issued by Revenue Agent Fred Chynoweth to these respondents,

seeking testimony and production of documents and records in the respondents' possession,

Case 1:05-cv-00258-REC-DLB Document 22 Filed 05/10/05 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

were in good faith and for a legitimate purpose under I.R.C. § 7602, that is, for the

determination of the correct tax liabilities of the respective taxpayers.

(4) The information sought is relevant to that purpose.

(5) The information sought is not already in the possession of the Internal Revenue

Service.

(6) The administrative steps required by the Internal Revenue Code have been

followed.

(7) There is no evidence of referral of these taxpayers or respondents by the Internal

Revenue Service to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution.

(8) There is a question of which, if any, documents might qualify for the Fifth

Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Similarly, issues of whether respondents'

answers to the IRS's oral questions might qualify for the Fifth Amendment privilege against

self-incrimination may arise during the IRS's questioning. Therefore, to avoid future motions

on these issues, the questioning will take place before the Honorable Dennis L. Beck. If Fifth

Amendment issues regarding documents or testimony arise during the hearing, they will be

ruled upon immediately and the hearing will proceed. 

RECOMMENDATION

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

issued to respondents be enforced, and that the respondents be ordered to appear in

Courtroom 5, on the third floor of the United States Courthouse, 1130 “O” Street, Fresno,

California, before Revenue Agent Fred Chynoweth, his designated representatives and/or

counsel, at the following dates and times:

LORNE McCAN, June 17, 2005, 8:00 a.m.,

JEAN ANNETTE LIASCOS, June 17, 2005, 9:00 a.m.,

JOHN INNIS, JR., June 17, 2005, 10:00 a.m.,

V. STEVEN BOOTH and LOUISE Q. BOOTH, June 17, 2005, 12:30 p.m.,

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 summonses. The examination

Case 1:05-cv-00258-REC-DLB Document 22 Filed 05/10/05 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

shall continue in the same place on July 11, 2005, at a time to be set in writing by Revenue

Agent Chynoweth or his designee.

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 © 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: May 9, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00258-REC-DLB Document 22 Filed 05/10/05 Page 4 of 4