-KJN United States of America et al v. Antonio, No. 2:2011mc00006 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, recommending 1 Verified Petition to Enforce Internal Revenue Service Summons be granted, Summonses be issued and enforced, and respondent be ordered to appear at IRS offices in Fairfield, CA for examination, signed by signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 3/22/2011. Within 14 days after being served with these F/Rs, any party may file written Objections with Court and serve a copy on all parties. (Marciel, M) (cc: respondent Walter Antonio, Jr.) Modified on 3/23/2011 (Marciel, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-KJN United States of America et al v. Antonio Doc. 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and R. L. WILLETT, Revenue Officer, Internal Revenue Service, 12 13 14 Petitioners, No. 2:11-mc-00006 GEB KJN v. WALTER ANTONIO, JR., 15 Respondent. 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 17 This matter came before the undersigned on March 17, 2011, as a result of an 18 order to show cause (“OSC”) entered on January 24, 2011. (OSC, Dkt. No. 3.) The OSC 19 ordered respondent to show cause why he should not be compelled to obey the summonses 20 issued by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) on May 27, 2010, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7602.1 21 (See OSC at 1 & ¶¶ 6-7, Dkt. No. 3.) Assistant United States Attorney Yoshinori H. T. Himel 22 appeared on behalf of petitioners, and Revenue Officer Roxanne Willett was also present at 23 counsel’s table. Respondent did not file a written response to the OSC in advance of the hearing 24 25 26 1 This matter is before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(9) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Subject matter jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1340 and 1345. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 and failed to appear at the hearing. For the reasons stated below, the undersigned recommends 2 that petitioners’ Verified Petition to Enforce Internal Revenue Service Summons be granted and 3 that respondent be ordered to comply with the summonses at issue. 4 Revenue Officer Willett is conducting an investigation of respondent to 5 determine: (1) respondent’s “correct liabilities for personal income tax for the tax years ending 6 December 31, 2007, December 31, 2008, and December 31, 2009”; and (2) “financial 7 information for the collection of assessed Employer’s Federal Quarterly Tax (Form 941) for the 8 tax periods ending December 31, 2008, March 31, 2009, June 30, 2009, and September 30, 2009 9 relating to [respondent’s] business ‘IUCG Sunshine Designs LLC.’” (Verified Petition to 10 Enforce IRS Summons (“Petition”) ¶ 4, Dkt. No. 1.) On May 27, 2010, the IRS issued two 11 summonses directing respondent to appear at the IRS’s Fairfield, California field office on 12 June 8, 2010, and testify and produce documents called for in the summonses. (Id. ¶ 6 & 13 Exhibits, Dkt. No. 1 at 6, 8.2) Although Officer Willett served respondent with the summonses at 14 respondent’s home by leaving the summonses with respondent’s adult son, respondent failed to 15 appear or otherwise comply with the summonses. (See Petition ¶¶ 7-9 & Exhibits, Dkt. No. 1 16 at 7, 9.) 17 Petitioners subsequently filed the Petition seeking enforcement of the May 27, 18 2010 summonses pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7604. Upon petitioners’ request, the undersigned 19 entered the OSC, which ordered respondent show cause why he should not be compelled to obey 20 the summonses. In the paragraph six of the OSC, the undersigned found that petitioners had met 21 their “slight” burden “to establish that the summons[es] (1) [were] issued pursuant to a 22 ‘legitimate purpose’; (2) seek[] information ‘relevant’ to that purpose; (3) seek[] information that 23 is ‘not already within the Commissioner’s possession’; and (4) satisf[y] all ‘administrative steps 24 required by the Code.’” Stewart v. United States, 511 F.3d 1251, 1254 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting 25 2 26 The summonses are attached as unenumerated exhibits to the Petition. Those summonses can be found in docket entry one, at pages six and eight. 2 1 United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48 (1964)); accord United States v. Richey, 632 F.3d 559, 564 2 (9th Cir. 2011). The undersigned further informed respondent that because petitioners had met 3 their initial burden with respect to obtaining enforcement of the summonses, the burden had 4 shifted to respondent to oppose enforcement. (See OSC ¶¶ 6-7.) Respondent could have 5 successfully opposed enforcement of the summonses and obtained a limited evidentiary hearing 6 by demonstrating “‘an abuse of process’ or ‘the lack of institutional good faith.’” Stewart, 511 7 F.3d at 1255 (quoting Fortney v. United States, 59 F.3d 117, 120 (9th Cir. 1995)); accord Richey, 8 632 F.3d at 564. Respondent has not made such a showing or offered any opposition or 9 argument in this regard and, therefore, has not met his burden to show why the summons should 10 not be enforced. Indeed, respondent failed to appear at the hearing on the OSC. Accordingly, the 11 undersigned recommends that the IRS summonses be enforced. 12 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 13 1. 14 15 The Verified Petition to Enforce Internal Revenue Service Summons (Dkt. No. 1) be granted and the IRS summonses issued to respondent Walter Antonio, Jr. be enforced. 2. Respondent be ordered to appear at the IRS offices at 4830 Business 16 Center Drive, Suite 250, Fairfield, California 94534, before Revenue Officer R. L. Willett 17 or her designated representative twenty-one days after the adoption of these findings and 18 recommendations, if adopted, or at a later date to be set in writing by Revenue Officer 19 Willett, then and there to be sworn, to give testimony, and to produce for examining and 20 copying the books, checks, records, papers and other data demanded by the summonses. 21 The examination shall continue from day to day until completed. 22 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve these findings and 23 recommendations and any future orders by mail to Mr. Walter Antonio, Jr., 2475 Ten Gate 24 Road, Fairfield, California, 94534. 25 26 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 3 1 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 2 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Id.; see also E. Dist. Local Rule 304(b). 3 Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 4 Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed with the court and served on 5 all parties within fourteen days after service of the objections. E. Dist. Local Rule 304(d). 6 Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 7 Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 8 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 9 10 IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. DATED: March 22, 2011 11 12 13 _____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
