From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Furgison-Mayall

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 2, 2015
1:14-cv-01334-LJO-BAM (E.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2015)

Opinion

1:14-cv-01334-LJO-BAM

03-02-2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner, v. TERRI FURGISON-MAYALL, Respondent.


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND ORDER RE: I.R.S. SUMMONS ENFORCEMENT

Taxpayer:
TERRI FURGISON-MAYALL

This matter came on before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on February 13, 2015, under the Order to Show Cause filed October 8, 2014 (Doc. 10), and the Order Continuing Order to Show Cause Hearing filed November 26, 2014, (Doc. 12). The orders, with the verified petition filed August 26, 2014, (Doc. 1), and its supporting memorandum, (Doc. 2-1), was served on Respondent via Respondent's friend, Michelle Milton, at Respondent's residence on December 4, 2014, and on Respondent via certified mail at Respondent's last known address. (Docs. 13 and 14). Respondent did not file opposition or non-opposition to the verified petition as provided for in the Order to Show Cause. At the hearing, Bobbie J. Montoya, Assistant United States Attorney, appeared on behalf of Petitioner, and investigating Revenue Officer Evan D. Moses also was present in the courtroom. Respondent did not appear.

The Verified Petition to Enforce IRS Summons initiating this proceeding seeks to enforce an administrative summons (Exhibit A to the petition) issued November 1, 2013. The summons is part of an investigation of the respondent to secure information needed to collect Form 1040 assessed federal income taxes for the tax years ending December 31, 2006, December 31, 2007, December 31, 2008, December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2010.

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 petition and documents in support. Based on the uncontroverted verified petition by Revenue Officer Evan D. Moses and the entire record, I make the following findings:

(1) The summons issued by Revenue Officer Evan D. Moses on November 1, 2013, and served upon Respondent, on November 1, 2013, by attaching an attested copy of the summons to the door of her residence, 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 Form 1040 assessed federal income taxes for the tax years ending December 31, 2006, December 31, 2007, December 31, 2008, December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2010.

(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, Terri Furgison-Mayall, to rebut that prima facie showing.

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

I therefore recommend that the IRS summons served upon Respondent be enforced; and that Respondent be ordered to appear at the I.R.S. offices at 2525 Capitol Street, Suite 205, Fresno, California, before Revenue Officer Moses or his designated representative, on the twenty-first (21st) day after the filing date of the District Judge's summons enforcement order, or at a later date to be set in writing by Revenue Officer Moses, 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. It is further recommended that if it enforces the summons, the District Court retain jurisdiction to enforce its order by means of 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 304 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Within fourteen (14) 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 fourteen (14) 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).

THE CLERK SHALL SERVE this and further orders by mail to Terri Furgison-Mayall, 607 Coventry Avenue, Clovis, California 93611. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2 , 2015

/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

United States v. Furgison-Mayall

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 2, 2015
1:14-cv-01334-LJO-BAM (E.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2015)
Case details for

United States v. Furgison-Mayall

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner, v. TERRI FURGISON-MAYALL, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 2, 2015

Citations

1:14-cv-01334-LJO-BAM (E.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2015)