United States v. Kraska

District Court, S.D. Florida·Decided November 26, 2024·No. 2:23-cv-14155·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 23-CIV-14155-MARTINEZ/MAYNARD

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Petitioner,

vs.

MICHAEL KRASKA,

Respondent. ___________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pending before the Court is the Government’s Petition to Enforce Internal Revenue Service Summons (“Petition”). DE 1. On July 17, 2024, I entered an Order Setting Show Cause Hearing directing Respondent, Michael Kraska (“Mr. Kraska”) to appear before this Court to show cause why he should not be compelled to obey the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) summons served upon him on August 9, 2022. DE 1-3. I ordered that the Show Cause Hearing be scheduled for September 27, 2024. DE 4. Thereafter, I entered an Order Sua Sponte Resetting Show Cause Hearing to November 5, 2024, due to weather-related concerns. DE 7. Having carefully reviewed the record and hearing argument of Petitioner’s counsel, I recommend that the Petition be GRANTED for the following reasons: BACKGROUND The IRS is investigating the financial status of Mr. Kraska in connection with the collection of outstanding tax liabilities. DE 1 at 2; DE 1-2 at ¶ 3. On August 9, 2022, Revenue Officer Lynnette Roux1 served an IRS summons on Mr. Kraska by leaving an attested copy of the summons at his last and usual place of abode. DE 1-2 at ¶ 5. The summons directed Mr. Kraska to appear before Ms. Roux on September 7, 2022, and provide testimony, as well as certain records and documents for the period of January 1, 2022, to the date of compliance. Id. at ¶ 4; DE 1-3 at 1. Mr. Kraska did not appear on September 7, 2022. DE 1-2 at ¶ 5.

On September 22, 2022, the IRS sent a letter to Mr. Kraska, directing him to appear on October 12, 2022. DE 1-2 at ¶ 6; DE 1-3 at 3-7. Once again, Mr. Kraska did not appear. DE 1-2 at ¶ 6. On May 31, 2023, the Government filed its Petition pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402(b) and 7604(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. DE 1. The Petition seeks a show cause order be issued with respect to enforcement of the summons. Id. at 5. On July 17, 2024, I entered an Order Setting Show Cause Hearing directing Mr. Kraska to show cause why he should not be compelled to obey the IRS summons. DE 4 at ¶ 1. The Government was ordered to personally serve Mr. Kraska by August 16, 2024, and file Proof of

Service no later than August 21, 2024. Id. at ¶¶ 3, 5. The Government was to serve Mr. Kraska both with its Petition (including exhibits) and a copy of the Order Setting Show Cause Hearing. Id. at ¶ 3. On August 21, 2024, the Government filed a Notice of Constructive Service which attached several Proofs of Service. DE 6. Any defense or opposition to the Government’s Petition was to be filed by Mr. Kraska on September 16, 2024, with notice that failure to do so would result in an admission of the allegations in the Petition. DE 4 at ¶ 9. Mr. Kraska did not file a response. Mr. Kraska was also warned that failure to comply with the Order may subject him to sanctions for contempt of court. Id. at ¶ 11.

1 Revenue Officer Lynnette Roux is an IRS pseudonym used within the scope of employment as authorized under IRS regulations. See DE 1-2 at ¶ 2. The Order to Show Cause hearing was originally scheduled for September 27, 2024. Id. at ¶ 2. When to the show cause hearing was sua sponte reset to November 5, 2024, Mr. Kraska was again given the opportunity to respond with any opposition or defense to the Government’s Petition by October 15, 2024. DE 7. Mr. Kraska did not file a response. The Order to Show Cause hearing was held on November 5, 2024, and Mr. Kraska did not appear.

DISCUSSION The district courts of the United States have jurisdiction to “compel such attendance, testimony, or production of books, papers, records, or other data” pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402(b) and 7604(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. To enforce a summons, the Government must demonstrate that: (1) the summons was issued for a legitimate purpose; (2) the information sought is relevant to that purpose; (3) the information sought is not already within the IRS’s possession and (4) the IRS has followed the appropriate administrative steps required by the Internal Revenue Code. United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58 (1964); see also United States v. Adams, 2024 WL 4678111, at *1 (11th Cir. Nov. 5, 2024) (affirming district court’s order granting the

Government’s petition to enforce an IRS summons issued as part of investigation to collect unpaid federal tax liabilities). Here, the Government has made a prima facie showing through the Declaration of IRS Revenue Officer Ms. Roux, which states that (1) the IRS investigation was being conducted for the purpose of determining Mr. Kraska’s financial status in connection with collecting outstanding tax liabilities; (2) obtaining Mr. Kraska’s testimony, as well as the books, records, papers or other data sought in the summons is relevant to determine Mr. Kraska’s financial status and tax liability; (3) the books, records, or papers sought are not in the IRS’ possession; and (4) all administrative steps required by the Internal Revenue Code have been taken. DE 1-2 at 2-3. With this showing made, the burden shifts to the party opposing the summons to disprove at least one of the four elements of the Government’s prima facie showing or else convince the court that enforcement would constitute an abuse of the court’s process. United States v. Medlin, 986 F.2d 563, 466 (11th Cir. 1993). Mr. Kraska failed to timely file any opposition or defense to enforcement of the summons by Court-ordered deadlines. DE 4; DE 7. Therefore, Mr. Kraska

has waived any objections to same. The Government argued both in its Notice of Constructive Service and during the Show Cause Hearing that service was effectuated upon Mr. Kraska. Specifically, the Government made a total of seven (7) documented attempts to serve Mr. Kraska with the Petition (including exhibits) and Order Setting Show Cause Hearing. DE 6 at 2-5. Beginning on July 19, 2024, Revenue Officer Jennifer Bell2 (“Ms. Bell”) attempted to serve Mr. Kraska at 557 SW Twig Avenue, Port St. Lucie, Florida 34984, but it was discovered Mr. Kraska was evicted upon arrival. DE 6-1 at ¶ 4. As a result, Ms. Bell conducted a diligent inquiry to ascertain Mr. Kraska’s whereabouts, which included the review of various income documents. Id. at ¶¶ 5, 11. A new address was obtained at

which Mr. Kraska’s registered vehicle was parked in the driveway—this address was 516 SE Felix Avenue, Port St. Lucie, Florida 34984. Id. at ¶ 11. The address was provided to all other Revenue Officers3 attempting personal service on Mr. Kraska. Id. at ¶ 12. On July 26, 2024, Ms. Bell attempted to serve the Government’s Petition with exhibits and the Order Setting Show Cause Hearing on Mr. Kraska. DE 6-2 at 2. Mr. Kraska’s vehicle was observed in the driveway. Id. at 2, 6. Mr. Kraska did not answer his door, so the documents were taped onto his door in an envelope. Id. at 2, 4.

2 Ms. Bell is acting under an IRS pseudonym.

3 In addition to Ms. Roux and Bell, Revenue Officers Lawrence Whitlock and Hector Lavoe are acting under an IRS pseudonym as authorized under IRS regulations. DE 6-3 at p. 2; DE 6-8 at p. 2. On July 29, 2024, Revenue Officer Lawrence Whitlock (“Mr. Whitlock”) attempted to serve the Government Petition with exhibits and Order Setting Show Cause Hearing on Mr. Kraska.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Kraska, (S.D. Fla. 2024).

United States v. Kraska (United States v. Kraska) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Powell
379 U.S. 48 (Supreme Court, 1964)
Thomas v. Arn
474 U.S. 140 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Kenneth Henley v. Willie E. Johnson, Warden
885 F.2d 790 (Eleventh Circuit, 1989)