The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE: I.R.S. SUMMONS ENFORCEMENT; ORDER TAXPAYER: JORGE RUIZ
This matter came before me on July 20, 2012, under the Order to Show Cause filed May 10, 2012, which, with the verified petition and memorandum, was personally served upon respondent's spouse at their residence, on May 23, 2012. Respondent did not file written opposition to the verified petition filed May 1, 2012. Yoshinori Himel, Assistant United States Attorney, appeared for petitioner, and investigating Revenue Officer David
M. Lopez was present. Respondent did not appear at the hearing.
The Verified Petition to Enforce I.R.S. Summons initiating this proceeding seeks to enforce an administrative summons (Exhibit A to the petition), issued October 11, 2011, to collect delinquent taxes for the tax years ending December 31, 2003, December 31, 2005, December 31, 2006, December 31, 2007, and December 31, 2008.
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).
I have reviewed the verified petition and the documents in its support. On the summons enforcement merits, based on the uncontroverted verification of the petition by Revenue Officer Lopez and the entire record, I find as follows:
(1) The summons issued by Revenue Officer David M. Lopez to respondent, Jorge Ruiz, on October 11, 2011, 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 collect delinquent taxes for the tax years ending December 31, 2003, December 31, 2005, December 31, 2006, December 31, 2007, and December 31, 2008.
(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, Jorge Ruiz, to rebut that ...