Menu
Tax Notes logo

CONTEMPT FINDING UPHELD BUT METHOD OF PURGING CONTEMPT EXPLAINED.

DEC. 30, 2003

Hall, Lawrence A., et ux., U.S. v.

DATED DEC. 30, 2003
DOCUMENT ATTRIBUTES
  • Case Name
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Petitioner v. LAWRENCE A. HALL AND ANNETTE C. HALL Respondents.
  • Court
    United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
  • Docket
    No. 2:03-mc-2-FtM-29DNF
  • Judge
    Steele, John E.
  • Cross-Reference
    United States v. Lawrence A. Hall, et ux., (M.D. Fla. Dec. 1,

    2003) (Doc 2004-4821 (11 original pages).)
  • Parallel Citation
    93 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2004-498
    2003 WL 23241703
  • Code Sections
  • Subject Area/Tax Topics
  • Jurisdictions
  • Language
    English
  • Tax Analysts Document Number
    Doc 2004-4822 (4 original pages)
  • Tax Analysts Electronic Citation
    2004 TNT 48-21

Hall, Lawrence A., et ux., U.S. v.

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

 

FORT MYERS DIVISION

 

 

ORDER

 

 

[1] On December 1, 2003, United States Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier submitted a Report and Recommendation (Doc. #15) to the Court recommending that Respondents be found in contempt of court in connection with the failure to comply with certain aspects of an Order (Doc. #4) entered on May 13, 2003, by the undersigned. No objections have been filed, and the time to file such objections has expired.

 

I.

 

 

[2] After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). A district judge "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) . This requires that the district judge "give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a party." Jeffrey S. by Ernest S. v. State Bd. of Educ. of Ga., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting H.R. 1609, 94th Cong., § 2 (1976)). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).

 

II.

 

 

[3] On August 18, 2003, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause (Doc. #8) directing respondents to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with the Court's May 13, 2003 Order enforcing three Internal Revenue Service summons and directing the signing of Authorization and Direction to Disclose Information forms. Respondents, through counsel, filed a Response to Order to Show Cause (Doc. #10). The assigned magistrate judge conducted a show cause hearing on September 30, 2003, and issued the Report and Recommendation (Doc. #15) on December 1, 2003.

[4] After reviewing the Report and Recommendation and the record, the Court fully agrees with the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the magistrate judge. The Court finds that respondents were not in contempt of court when they appeared and gave testimony in response to the May 13, 2003 Order enforcing the three IRS summons. The Court further finds that respondents are each in contempt of court for failing to use all reasonable efforts to obtain their account records and statements from Leadenhall Trust Company LTD and are in contempt of court for signing the Authorization and Direction to Disclose Information forms with the qualifying language "Signed pursuant to court order only, and under duress, all rights reserved." Respondents will be allowed to purge the contempt in the manner described below, and in the absence of such purging conduct will be sentenced by the Court for their contempt.

[5] Accordingly, it is now

[6] ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #15) is accepted and adopted, and it is specifically incorporated into this Order.

2. On or before January 16, 2004, respondents Lawrence A. Hall and Annette C. Hall shall: (a) sign Authorization and Direction to Disclose Information forms with their respective signatures only, without any qualifying language or verbiage, and (b) provide the signed forms to the Internal Revenue Service by serving the forms on Revenue Agent Michael Rovnak or his designee. A copy of the Authorization and Direction to Disclose Information forms to be signed are attached to this Order.

3. On or before January 16, 2004, respondents Lawrence A. Hall and Annette C. Hall shall make all reasonable efforts to obtain their account records and statements from Leadenhall Trust Company LTD or to have such records provided to the Internal Revenue Service, and shall provide Revenue Agent Rovnak with confirmation of such efforts on or before January 23, 2004.

4. On or before February 6, 2004, respondents Lawrence A. Hall and Annette C. Hall shall provide their account records and statements from Leadenhall Trust Company LTD to Revenue Agent Rovnak or his designee if these records and statements have not been provided by Leadenhall Trust Company LTD directly to the Internal Revenue Service.

5. On or before February 13, 2004, the Internal Revenue Service shall file with the Court a Notice as to whether the three summons have been satisfied.

6. If the Internal Revenue Service files a Notice that the three summons have not been satisfied, a sentencing hearing will be conducted before the undersigned on February 23, 2004, at 4:00 p.m. Respondents must be present.

[7] DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 30th day of December, 2003.

JOHN E. STEELE

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Copies (with attachments):

 

Hon. Douglas N. Frazier

 

Counsel of Record

 

DCCD
DOCUMENT ATTRIBUTES
  • Case Name
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Petitioner v. LAWRENCE A. HALL AND ANNETTE C. HALL Respondents.
  • Court
    United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
  • Docket
    No. 2:03-mc-2-FtM-29DNF
  • Judge
    Steele, John E.
  • Cross-Reference
    United States v. Lawrence A. Hall, et ux., (M.D. Fla. Dec. 1,

    2003) (Doc 2004-4821 (11 original pages).)
  • Parallel Citation
    93 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2004-498
    2003 WL 23241703
  • Code Sections
  • Subject Area/Tax Topics
  • Jurisdictions
  • Language
    English
  • Tax Analysts Document Number
    Doc 2004-4822 (4 original pages)
  • Tax Analysts Electronic Citation
    2004 TNT 48-21
Copy RID