Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States of America v. Enforcing I.R.S. Summons

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


October 14, 2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
PETITIONER,
v.
ENFORCING I.R.S. SUMMONS JEFFREY A. GRANDSTAFF, RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter came before me on September 23, 2011, under the Order to Show Cause filed July 28, 2011, which, with the verified petition and memorandum, was personally served upon respondent, Jeffrey A. Grandstaff, on August 8, 2011. Respondent did not file written opposition.

At the hearing, Yoshinori H. T. Himel appeared for petitioner, and investigating Revenue Officer Michael Nicholas was present. Respondent, Jeffrey A. Grandstaff, appeared in person. The parties expressed, in open court, their agreement to meet on Friday, December 16, 2011, at 9:00 a.m., at the Modesto IRS office, for respondent to comply with the IRS summons.

By consent of the parties, this action has been referred to me to conduct all further proceedings and to order the entry of a final judgment. See Documents 10 and 12 (consents) and Document 15 (order of approval and reference). Accordingly, this will be the dispositive order in the action.

The Verified Petition to Enforce I.R.S. Summons initiating this proceeding seeks to enforce an administrative summons (Exhibit A to the petition) in aid of Revenue Officer Nicholas' investigation of Jeffrey A. Grandstaff. The investigation seeks to determine Mr. Grandstaff's correct liabilities for personal income tax for the tax years ending December 31, 2006, December 31, 2007, December 31, 2008, and December 31, 2009.

The petition invokes subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1340 and 1345. I find subject matter jurisdiction 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).

I have reviewed the petition and documents in support. Based on the uncontroverted verification by Revenue Officer Nicholas and the entire record, I make the following findings:

(1) The summons issued by Revenue Officer Martha Rodriguez to respondent, Jeffrey A. Grandstaff, on December 8, 2010, 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 determine respondent's correct liabilities for personal income tax for the tax years ending December 31, 2006, December 31, 2007, December 31, 2008, and December 31, 2009.

(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, Jeffrey A. Grandstaff, to rebut that prima facie showing.

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

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The I.R.S. summons issued to respondent, Jeffrey A. Grandstaff, is ENFORCED.

2. Respondent, Jeffrey A. Grandstaff, MUST APPEAR at the I.R.S. offices at 1533 Lakewood Avenue, Modesto, California 95355, before Revenue Officer Michael Nicholas, or his designated representative, on Friday, December 16, 2011, at 9:00 a.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 summons, the examination to continue from day to day until completed.

3. The court retains jurisdiction for further proceedings should they become necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20111014

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.