United States of America v. Schmidt, No. 1:2018cv00196 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 9 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; Enforcing Internal Revenue Summons signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 06/19/2018. (Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 12 13 14 15 No. 1: 18-cv-00196-DAD-BAM Petitioner, v. ARNOLD H. SCHMIDT, Respondent. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ENFORCING INTERNAL REVENUE SUMMONS (Doc. No. 9) 16 17 On February 7, 2018, the United States filed a petition to enforce an internal revenue 18 summons issued May 24, 2017, as part of an investigation of respondent Arnold H. Schmidt 19 (“respondent”) seeking to secure information needed to collect the tax liability for Form 1040 for 20 the calendar periods ending December 31, 2005, December 31, 2010, and December 31, 2011, 21 and CIVPEN (Trust Fund Recovery Penalty) for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2013. 22 (Doc. No. 1.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 23 § 636(b) and Local Rules 302 and 304. 24 On February 14, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued an order requiring respondent 25 to appear on April 6, 2018 to show cause why the I.R.S. summons issued to him on May 24, 2017 26 should not be enforced. (Doc. No. 5.) On March 9, 2018, the United States served respondent 27 with the petition to enforce the I.R.S. summons filed on February 7, 2018 (Doc. No. 1), the I.R.S. 28 summons (Doc. No. 2), and the order to show cause filed February 14, 2018 (Doc. No. 5). (Doc. 1 1 No. 6). Respondent did not file an opposition to the verified petition as provided for in the order 2 to show cause. 3 At the show cause hearing on April 6, 2018, Assistant U.S. Attorney John Edwards 4 appeared on behalf of the petitioner, and investigating revenue officer Lisa Lopez was present 5 before the court. (Doc. No. 9 at 1.) The respondent appeared at the hearing and agreed to meet 6 with revenue officer Lopez on Friday, May 18, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. (See Doc. No. 7.) On April 17, 7 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the 8 I.R.S. summons issued to respondent be enforced and those findings and recommendations were 9 served on respondent by mail. (Doc. No. 9.) The findings and recommendations provided 10 fourteen days for the filing of objections. (Id. at 3.) No objections have been filed by respondent. 11 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 12 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings 13 and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis and determines that 14 summons enforcement is properly granted in this case. 15 Accordingly: 16 1. 17 The April 17, 2018 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 9) are adopted in full; 18 2. The I.R.S. summons (Doc. No. 1) issued to respondent is hereby enforced. 19 3. Respondent Arnold H. Schmidt is ordered to appear at the I.R.S. offices at 2525 20 Capitol Street, Suite 206, Fresno, CA 93721, before revenue officer Lisa Lopez or 21 her designated representative, on or before a date to be set by revenue officer Lisa 22 Lopez in consultation with respondent Schmidt, then and there to be sworn, to give 23 testimony, and to produce for examining and copying the books, checks, records, 24 papers and other data demanded by the summons, the examination to continue 25 from day to day until completed. Should the appointment date need to be 26 continued or rescheduled, the respondent is to be notified in writing of the later 27 date for the appointment by Officer Lopez. 28 ///// 2 1 4. 2 3 contempt power. 5. 4 5 6 7 The District Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce its order by means of its The Clerk of the Court shall serve this and any future orders issued in this action by mailing them to Arnold H. Schmidt, 5737 W. Cromwell, Fresno, CA 93722. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 19, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
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.
