1

2

3

4

5

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:24-cv-00980-KES-SAB 10 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11 RECOMMENDING IRS SUMMONS v. SERVED UPON ROBERT J. COYLE BE 12 ENFORCED ROBERT J. COYLE, 13 (ECF No. 1) Respondent. 14 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 15 16 On August 20, 2024, the United States filed a petition to enforce an Internal Revenue 17 Service (“IRS”) summons issued to Respondent Robert J. Coyle. (ECF No. 1.) On August 22, 18 2024, the Court issued an order to show cause as to why that summons should not be enforced. 19 (ECF No. 4.) A copy of that order, the petition, and its supporting documents were personally 20 served on Respondent on September 3, 2024. (ECF No. 6.) 21 This matter came for a hearing before the undersigned on December 11, 2024. (ECF No. 22 12.) Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert A. Fuentes appeared on behalf of Petitioner. Respondent 23 Robert J. Coyle appeared pro se. (Id.) Respondent presented no argument at the hearing, and he 24 has not filed any defense or opposition to the petition as provided in the order to show cause. 25 Respondent confirmed that he may be served at the “Hedges” address at which he was served the 26 petition, which is 1828 E. Hedges Avenue, Fresno, CA 93703. (ECF No. 6.) Based on the 27 uncontroverted, verified petition and supporting declaration by Revenue Officer Lori L. Minjarez, and the entire record, the undersigned makes the following findings, pursuant to 28

(b)(1)(B) and (C) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of the United States District 2 Court for the Eastern District of California: 3 1. Subject matter jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to

and 1345 4 and is found to be proper.

(b) and 7604(a) authorize the government to bring 5 this action in this Court. 6 2. The petition, declaration, and exhibits constituted a prima facie showing that the 7 subject IRS investigation is conducted pursuant to a legitimate purpose, that the associated 8 inquiry is relevant to that purpose, that the information sought is not already within the IRS’ 9 possession, and that the administrative steps required by the Internal Revenue Code have been 10 followed. See United States v. Powell,

(1964). 11 3. Because Respondent has not presented any argument or evidence in this matter, 12 he has not rebutted that prima facie showing. 13 4. The IRS summons issued on February 24, 2023 (ECF No. 1-1 ¶ 4), and served 14 upon Respondent that same date (Id. at ¶ 5), seeking testimony and production of documents and 15 records in Respondent’s possession was issued in good faith and for a legitimate purpose under 16

, that is, to secure to secure collection information for the period beginning 17 January 1, 2022, and ending January 31, 2023; to determine tax liabilities for the annual periods 18 ending December 31, 2013, December 31, 2015, and December 31, 2016; and to determine civil 19 penalties for the quarterly periods ending December 31, 2014, December 31, 2015, and 20 December 31, 2016. (Id. ¶ 3.) 21 5. The information sought by the IRS is relevant to that legitimate purpose and not 22 already in the possession of the IRS. 23 6. The administrative steps required by the Internal Revenue Code have been 24 followed. 25 7. There is no evidence of a referral of this case by the IRS to the Department of 26 Justice for criminal prosecution. 27 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the IRS summons served upon 1 1. Respondent be ordered to appear at the United States Attorney’s Office located at 2 |the Robert E. Coyle United States Courthouse, 2500 Tulare Street, Suite 4401, Fresno, CA 3 | 93721, before Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert A. Fuentes or IRS Revenue Officer Lori L. 4 | Minjarez at 10:00 AM on January 13, 2025; 5 2. Respondent be ordered, on the above date and time, to produce for examination 6 | and copying all documents and records demanded by the summons in his possession, custody, or 7 | control regarding assets, liabilities, or accounts held in his name or for his benefit which he 8 | wholly or partially owns, or in which he has a security interest, including, but not limited to, all 9 | bank statements, checkbooks, canceled checks, savings account passbooks, records or certificates 10 | of deposit, and other forms or data listed in the summons; and, 11 3. Failure to comply with this order may result in the issuance of sanctions. 12 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 13 | assigned to this case under

(b)(1)(B) and (C) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of 14 | the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Within fourteen days after 15 | being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 16 | with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be titled “Objections to 17 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to such objections shall be 18 | served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The District Judge will then 19 | review these findings and recommendations pursuant to

(b)(1)(C). 20 It is FURTHER ORDERED that the United States shall serve a copy of this Order on 21 | Robert J. Coyle, 1828 E. Hedges Avenue, Fresno, CA 93703, and file proof of service within 22 | three (3) days of completing service. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. OF. nf ee 45 | Dated: _ December 12, 2024 STANLEY A. BOONE 26 United States Magistrate Judge 27 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27