United States v. Alarcon

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and EARL K. HARTSELL, Revenue Officer…

Court: United States District Court, N.D. California

Date published: Mar 18, 2010

No. C-09-5487 MMC (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2010)

Opinion

No. C-09-5487 MMC.

March 18, 2010

ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO ENFORCE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE SUMMONS; ORDERING RESPONDENT TO COMPLY WITH SUMMONS; VACATING MARCH 26, 2010 HEARING AND MAY 14, 2010 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

MAXINE CHESNEY, District Judge

Before the Court is petitioners' Verified Petition to Enforce Internal Revenue Service Summons, filed November 19, 2009. Respondent Raymond C. Alarcon ("Alarcon") has not filed a response to the petition. Having read and considered the petition, the Court deems the matter suitable for decision thereon, VACATES the hearing scheduled for March 26, 2010, and rules as follows.

For the reasons stated by petitioners, the Court finds enforcement of the summons attached to the petition as Exhibit A is proper. Further, for Court finds it unnecessary to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the matter, specifically, for the reason that Alarcon has not opposed issuance of the petition, must less offered evidence to support a finding that the summons was "issued for an improper purpose." See Fortney v. United States, 59 F.3d 117, 121 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding party challenging issuance of Internal Revenue Service summons not entitled to evidentiary hearing where party fails to offer evidence to support finding IRS is not acting in good faith).

Accordingly, the petition is hereby GRANTED, and Alarcon is hereby ORDERED to appear before Revenue Officer Earl K. Hartsell, or any designated agent, on Monday, April 26, 2010, at 10:00 a.m., at the Offices of the Internal Revenue Service, 777 Sonoma Avenue, Room 112, Santa Rosa, California, 95404-4731, and then and there give testimony relating to the matters described in the subject Internal Revenue Service summons, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and produce for the Revenue Officer's inspection and copying the records described in the attached Internal Revenue Service summons.

Failure to comply with the instant order may be grounds for a finding of contempt. See, e.g., United States v. Ayres, 166 F.3d 991, 994-96 (9th Cir. 1999) (affirming finding of contempt, where party failed to comply with court order directing him to provide testimony and produce records to IRS).

The May 14, 2010 Case Management Conference is hereby VACATED, and no party shall appear at that time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

EXHIBIT A