May 2006

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

TAX DIVISION

SUMMONS

ENFORCEMENT

MANUAL

An Introduction

Co-Authors:

Frank P. Cihlar

Rachel D. Cramer

Frank de Leon

Deborah S. Meland

Ann Carroll Reid

Norma J. Schrock
i May 2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 1

II. LAW. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 2

A. IRS SUMMONS AUTHORITY. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 2

B. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A SUMMONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1. Burdens of production and persuasion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2. Requirements for a valid summons.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

a. The Supreme Court’s Powell requirements.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

(1) The summons was issued for a legitimate purpose. . . . 5

(2) The summoned information may be relevant. . . . . . . . 6

(3) The summoned information is not already in the

possession of the IRS.... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 8

(4) The summons meets all administrative requirements

. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 10

b. No “Justice Department referral” is in effect - § 7602(d)

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 12

c. Requirements to summon certain subject matters. . . . . . . 14

(1) Cable Communications Policy Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

(2) Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act

(HIPAA)....... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 15

(3) Tax accrual workpapers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

3. Enforcement actions.... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 17

a. No conditional enforcement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

b. Withdrawal and reissuance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

c. Effect of taxpayer appeal. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 19

(1) Order is enforceable unless stayed.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

(2) Compliance does not moot an appeal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

c. Remedies for failure to obey enforcement order. . . . . . . . . 22

(1) Coercive Fines....... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 25

(2) Coercive Imprisonment. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 25

(3) Compensatory Fines. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 26

4. Petitions to quash third-party summons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

a. Requirements. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 27

b. Counterclaim for enforcement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

C. RESPONSES TO FREQUENT OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS

.... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 30
ii May 2006

1. IRS failed to follow administrative requirements. . . . . . . . . . . 30

a. Challenges to the issuance of the summons. . . . . . . . . . . . 31

b. Challenges to service of the summons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

c. Challenges to the adequacy of the notice of the summons

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 33

d. Other Arguments. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 34

2. The summons seeks information that the summoned party has a

legal duty not to reveal.... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 35

a. Attorney-client privilege.... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 35

(1) Elements of the attorney-client privilege.. . . . . . . . . . 35

(2) Express Waiver. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 39

(3) Implied Waiver. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 39

(4) Selective Waiver. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 40

(5) Inadvertent Waiver. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 42

(6) Crime Fraud Exception.... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 43

b. Tax Practitioner privilege.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

c. Work product.... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 47

3. Overly broad, vague, or burdensome.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

4. First Amendment privilege. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 51

5. Fourth Amendment privilege. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

6. Fifth Amendment privilege. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 55

a. Act of Production.... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 56

b. Collective entity doctrine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

c. Required records exception. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

7. Non-possession. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 59

8. Improper purpose or institutional bad faith. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

9. Criminal referral. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 63

10. Intervening events....... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 63

D. SPECIALTY SUMMONSES. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 64

1. John Doe summonses. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 64

2. Summons for records from a church (I.R.C. § 7611).. . . . . . . . . 65

3. Summons for computer software (I.R.C. § 7612). . . . . . . . . . . . 66

4. Summons pursuant to Tax Treaty and Tax Information

Exchange.... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 67

5. Designated summonses (I.R.C. § 6503(j)). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

III. PROCEDURES. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 72

A. PETITION TO ENFORCE. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 72

1. Which office should file. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 72

2. Approvals. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 73

3. Documents to File.... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 74
iii May 2006

4. Service of order to show cause. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

5. Monitoring compliance.... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 76

6. Contempt procedures. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 76

B. RESPONDING TO PETITIONS TO QUASH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

C. DISCOVERY AND EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

1. Limitations on discovery. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 77

2. Evidentiary Hearings.... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 79

D. THE ROLE OF MAGISTRATE JUDGES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

E. “JOHN DOE” SUMMONS PROCEDURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

F. APPEAL PROCEDURES. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 81

IV. FORMS

A. CHECKLIST. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . Exhibit 1

B. ENFORCEMENT

1. Petition to Enforce. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . Exhibit 2

2. Declaration in Support of Petition to Enforce.. . . . . . . . Exhibit 3

3. Show Cause Order. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . Exhibit 4

4. Certificate of Service. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Exhibit 5

C. PETITIONS TO QUASH

1. Motions to Dismiss. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . Exhibit 6

2. Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss. . . . . . . Exhibit 7

3. Order of Dismissal. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . Exhibit 8

D. JOHN DOE SUMMONS

1. Ex Parte Petition for Leave to Serve “John Doe” Summons. . . . .

. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Exhibit 9

2. Declaration in Support of Petition for Leave to Serve “John Doe”

Summons . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . Exhibit 10

3. Memorandum in Support of Petition for Leave to Serve “John

Doe” Summons. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . Exhibit 11

4. Order. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Exhibit 12

5. Notice of Filing Ex Parte Petition for Leave to Serve “John Doe”

Summons.. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . Exhibit 13
iv May 2006

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

CASES PAGE(S)

2121 Arlington Heights Corp. v. IRS, 109 F.3d 1221 (7th Cir. 1997).. . . . . 4, 74

Acierno v. New Castle County, 40 F.3d 645 (3d Cir. 1994). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Adams v. Walker, 488 F.2d 1064 (7th Cir. 1973). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Alford v. United States, 90 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 7034 (N.D. Tex. 2002). . . . . . . . 34

Alldread v. City of Grenada, 988 F.2d 1425 (5th Cir. 1993).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Alphin v. United States, 809 F.2d 236 (4th Cir. 1987). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 79

Am.Wrecking Corp. v. Sec’y of Labor, 364 F.3d 321 (D.C. Cir. 2004).. . . . . . . 27

In re Application of the United States of Am. for an Order Directed to

Cablevision Sys. Corp., 158 F. Supp. 2d 644 (D. Md. 2001). . . . . . . . . . . 14

Barquero v. United States, 18 F.3d 1311 (5th Cir. 1994). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 68

Beck v. United States, 91 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1345 (6th Cir. 2003).. . . . . . . . . . 29

Becker v. United States, 451 U.S. 1306 (1981). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 19

Bellis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85 (1974). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 57

Berman v. United States, 264 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2001).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27, 28

In re Bilzerian, 926 F.2d 1285 (2d Cir. 1991). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Bionic Auto. Parts & Sales, Inc. v. Fahner, 

721 F.2d 1072 (7th Cir. 1983). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 59

Bittaker v. Woodford, 331 F.3d 715, (9th Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 26

Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725 (1974). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 21

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 52, 54

Braswell v. United States, 487 U.S. 99 (1988).... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 57

CFTC v. Armstrong, 284 F.3d 404 (2d Cir. 2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26, 40

CFTC v. Weintraub, 471 U.S. 343, 358 (1985).... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 39

Canaday v. United States, 354 F.2d 849 (8th Cir. 1966). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Carter v. Gibbs, 909 F.2d 1450 (Fed. Cir. 1990). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Catena v. Seidl, 343 A.2d 744, 747 (N.J. 1975)). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Cavallaro v. United States, 284 F.3d 236 (1st Cir. 2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Chadwick v. Janecka, 312 F.3d 597 (3d Cir. 2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394 (4th Cir. 1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Chen Chi Wang v. United States, 757 F.2d 1000 (9th Cir. 1985). . . . . . . . . . . 78

Chevron Corp. v. Pennzoil Co., 974 F.2d 1156 (9th Cir. 1992). . . . . . . 38, 39, 40

Chicago Truck Drivers v. Bhd. Labor Leasing, 207 F.3d 500 (8th Cir. 2000). 23

Church of Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9 (1992). . . . . . . 13, 21, 22, 64

Clady v. County of Los Angeles, 770 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1985). . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1 (1933). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 43

Clarke v. Am. Commerce Nat’l Bank, 974 F.2d 127 (9th Cir. 1992).. . . . . . . . 37
v May 2006

Codner v. United States, 17 F.3d 1331 (10th Cir. 1994). . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 11, 34

Coleman v. Am. Broad. Cos., 106 F.R.D. 201 (D.D.C. 1985).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Colorado Bldg & Constr. Trades Council v. B.B. Andersen

Constr. Co., 879 F.2d 809 (10th Cir. 1989).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Colton v. United States, 306 F.2d 633 (2d Cir. 1962). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35, 36, 38

In re Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., 293 F.3d 289 (6th Cir. 2002). . . . . . 41

Commissioner v. Hayes, 631 F. Supp. 785 (N.D. Cal. 1985). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Connolly v. J.T. Ventures, 851 F.2d 930 (7th Cir. 1988).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Conrad v. United States, 1989 WL 165576 (W.D. Mich. 1989).. . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Cook v. United States, 104 F.3d 886 (6th Cir. 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 18, 33

Copp v. United States, 968 F.2d 1435 (1st Cir. 1992). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Cosme v. IRS, 708 F. Supp. 45 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Couch v. United States, 409 U.S. 322 (1973). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 36, 44

In re Crededio, 759 F.2d 589 (7th Cir. 1985). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 26

Crystal v. United States, 172 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Culinary Foods, Inc. v. Raychem Corp., 150 F.R.D. 122 (N.D. Ill. 1993).. . . . 49

Cypress Funds, Inc. v. United States, 234 F.3d 1267 (6th Cir. 2000).. . . . . . . 54

Dame v. United States, 643 F. Supp. 533 (S.D.N.Y. 1986). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Darland v. United States, 921 F. Supp. 316 (D. Md. 1996). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

David H. Tedder & Assocs. v. United States, 

77 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 1996). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 8

DeGroote v. United States, 57 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1373 (W.D.N.Y. 1986). . . . . 64

Deal v. United States, 759 F.2d 442 (5th Cir. 1985). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Deleeuw v. IRS, 681 F. Supp. 402 (E.D.Mich. 1987). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Dellwood Farms, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., 

128 F.3d 1122 (7th Cir. 1997). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 41, 42

Diversified Indus., Inc. v. Meredith, 572 F.2d 596 (8th Cir. 1977).. . . . . . 40, 41

Doe v. KPMG, LLP, 325 F. Supp. 2d 746 (N.D. Tex. 2004).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Doe v. Wachovia Corp., 268 F. Supp. 2d 627 (W.D.N.C. 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

In re Does, 671 F.2d 977 (6th Cir. 1982). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 65

Dollar v. United States, 57 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 998 (W.D. Wash. 1985). . . . . . . 19

Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517 (1971). ... ... ... ... ... ... . 55, 63

Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U.S. 761 (1993). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 52

Faber v. United States, 69 F. Supp. 2d 965 (W.D. Mich. 1999). . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Faber v. United States, 921 F.2d 1118 (10th Cir. 1990). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

In re Feldberg, 862 F.2d 622 (7th Cir. 1988). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 43

Feltner v. Title Search Co., 283 F.3d 838 (7th Cir. 2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37, 39, 54, 55, 57

Flournoy v. Marshall, 842 F.2d 875 (6th Cir. 1988). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Fortney v. United States, 59 F.3d 117 (9th Cir. 1995).. . . . . . . . 4, 11, 29, 34, 79

Fowler v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1088 (11th Cir. 1990). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
vi May 2006

Fraiser v. Southeastern Pa. Transp. Auth., 

161 F.R.D. 309 (E.D. Pa. 1995). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 49

In re G-I Holdings Inc., 218 F.R.D. 428 (D.N.J. 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Garpeg, Ltd. v. United States, 583 F. Supp. 799 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). . . . . . . . . . 63

Gen. Signal Corp. v. Donallco, Inc., 787 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir. 1986). . . . . . . . . 26

Genentech, Inc. v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 

122 F.3d 1409 (Fed. Cir. 1997)....... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 39, 41

Gillings v. United States, 95 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1014 (9th Cir. 2005). . . . . . . . 18

Golden Valley Microwave Foods, Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co., 

132 F.R.D. 204 (N.D. Ind. 1990). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 39

Goldman, Sachs & Co. v. Blondis, 

412 F. Supp. 286 (N.D. Ill. 1976). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 40

In re Grand Jury Investigation, 842 F.2d 1223 (11th Cir. 1987). . . . . . . . . . . 43

In re Grand Jury Investigation (Braun), 

600 F.2d 420 (3d Cir. 1979). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 25, 26

In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 87 F.3d 377 (9th Cir. 1996). . . . . . . . . . . . 43, 44

In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 517 F.2d 666 (5th Cir. 1975). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 601 F.2d 162 (5th Cir. 1979). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 727 F.2d 1352 (4th Cir. 1984). . . . . . . . . . 38, 42

In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 771 F.2d 143 (6th Cir. 1985). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Violette), 

183 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 1991). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 43

In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 21 F.3d 226 (8th Cir. 1994).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 831 F.2d 225 (11th Cir. 1987).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

In re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated Nov. 12, 1991, 

957 F.2d 807 (11th Cir. 1992). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 57, 58

In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated June 13, 1983 

& June 22, 1983, 722 F.2d 981 (2d Cir. 1983). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Served upon Underhill, 

781 F.2d 64 (6th Cir. 1986). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 59

In re Grand Jury Witness, 695 F.2d 359 (9th Cir. 1982). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62 (1968). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 58

Hartman v. United States, 76 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 7856 (M.D. Fla. 1995). . . . . 28

Hearn v. Rhay, 68 F.R.D. 574 (E.D. Wash. 1975). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Hebert v. Exxon Corp., 953 F.2d 936 (5th Cir. 1992).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Herman v. Galvin, 40 F. Supp. 2d 27 (D. Mass. 1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Hertz v. Woodman, 218 U.S. 205 (1910). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 17

Hicks v. United States, 91 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 589 (M.D.N.C. 2003). . . . . . . . . 29

Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (1987)... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 20, 21

Hintze v. IRS, 879 F.2d 121 (4th Cir. 1989). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13, 79

Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 (1951).... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 55
vii May 2006

Holifield v. United States, 677 F. Supp. 996 (E.D. Wis. 1987). . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Holifield v. United States, 909 F.2d 201 (7th Cir. 1990).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32, 34

Hovind v. United States, 78 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 7663. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Int’l Bus. Enters. v. United States, 

75 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2237 (S.D. Cal. 1995).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Int’l Digital Sys. Corp. v. Digital Equip. Corp., 

120 F.R.D. 445 (D. Mass. 1988). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 40

Int’l Union, United Mine Workers v. Bagwell, 

512 U.S. 821 (1994). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 23, 24

Irwin v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (1990). ... ... ... ... ... ... 28

Jungles v. United States, 634 F. Supp. 585 (N.D.Ill.1986). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 56

Kearns v. United States, 580 F. Supp. 8 (S.D. Ohio 1983). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Knauss v. United States, 28 F.Supp.2d 1252, 1254 (S.D.Fla. 1998).. . . . . . . . 77

Kondik v. United States, 81 F.3d 655 (6th Cir. 1996). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Lambert v. Montana, 545 F.2d 87 (9th Cir. 1976).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

In re Lawrence, 279 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Lefcourt v. United States, 125 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 1997). ... ... ... ... ... ... . 37

Liberty Fin. Servs. v. United States, 778 F.2d 1390 (9th Cir. 1985).. . . . . . . . . 4

In re Lindsey, 158 F.3d 1263 (D.C. Cir. 1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Linn v. Chivatero, 714 F.2d 1278 (5th Cir. 1983). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Lois Sportswear, USA, Inc. v. Levi Strauss & Co., 

104 F.R.D. 103 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 42

Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440 (10th Cir. 1990). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Mackenzie v. United States, 84 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6725 (E.D. Cal. 1999). . . . . 28

Madigan v. Telemarketing Assocs., Inc., 538 U.S. 600 (2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Madison v. United States, 758 F.2d 573 (11th Cir. 1985).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Maggio v. Zeitz, 333 U.S. 56 (1948). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 24

Malone v. Humphrey, 237 F.2d 55 (6th Cir. 1956). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Malone v. United States, 77 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1157 (M.D. Ga. 1996). . . . . . . 28

In re Martin Marietta Corp., 856 F.2d 619 (4th Cir. 1988).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

In re Martin-Trigona, 590 F. Supp. 87 (D. Conn. 1984). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Masat v. United States, 745 F.2d 985 (5th Cir. 1984).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Mason v. Pulliam, 557 F.2d 426 (5th Cir. 1977). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Mazurek v. United States, 271 F.3d 226 (5th Cir. 2001).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

McClary v. Walsh, 202 F.R.D. 286 (N.D. Ala. 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

McGarry’s, Inc. v. Rose, 344 F.2d 416 (1st Cir. 1965). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

McPhaul v. United States, 364 U.S. 372 (1960). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 23

Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651 (1895). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 22

Mimick v. United States, 952 F.2d 230 (8th Cir. 1991).. . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 31, 34
viii May 2006

Morgan v. United States, 380 F.2d 686 (9th Cir. 1967). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Morrison v. California, 291 U.S. 82 (1934). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 23

Morton v. Beyer, 822 F.2d 364 (3d Cir. 1987). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 21

Multistate Tax Comm’n v. United States Steel Corp., 

659 F.2d 931 (9th Cir. 1981). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 20

NCBA/NCE v. United States, 843 F. Supp. 655 (D. Colo. 1993). . . . . . . . . . . 53

NLRB v. Retail Store Employees Union, 447 U.S. 607 (1980). . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Napier v. Thirty or More Unidentified Fed. Agents, 

855 F.2d 1080 (3d Cir. 1988).... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 27

Nat’l Soc’y of Prof’l Eng’rs v. United States, 435 U.S. 679 (1978). . . . . . . . . . 53

In re Nevitt, 117 F. 448 (8th Cir. 1902). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 25

In re Newton, 718 F.2d 1015 (11th Cir. 1983). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Norfleet v. United States, 89 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2879 (E.D.N.C. 2002). . . . . . . 29

O’Connor v. Midwest Pipe Fabrications, Inc., 

972 F.2d 1204 (10th Cir. 1992). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 25

Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass’n, 436 U.S. 447 (1978). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52, 53 

Oklahoma Press Pub’g Co. v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186 (1946). . . . . . . . . . . . 50, 54

Oldham v. United States, 89 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2095 (D. Or. 2002). . . . . . . . . 29

PAA Mgmt., Ltd. v. United States, 

962 F.2d 212 (2d Cir. 1992).... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 6, 63, 79

Pac. Fisheries, Inc. v. United States, 

94 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5953 (W.D. Wash. 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Pacamor Bearings, Inc. v. Minebea Co., 918 F. Supp. 491 (D.N.H. 1996). . . . 49

Parkway Gallery Furniture, Inc. v. Kittinger/Pa. 

House Group, Inc., 116 F.R.D. 46 (M.D.N.C. 1987). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Peretz v. United States, 501 U.S. 923 (1991). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 80

Permian Corp. v. United States , 665 F.2d 1214 (D.C. Cir. 1981). . . . . . . . . . 41

Perrignon v. Bergen Brunswig Corp., 77 F.R.D. 455 (N.D. Cal. 1978).. . . . . . 40

Peterson v. Highland Music, Inc., 140 F.3d 1313 (9th Cir. 1998).. . . . . . . . . . 23

Pintel v. United States, 74 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5105 (C.D. Cal. 1994).. . . . . . . . 18

Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm’n on Human Relations, 

413 U.S. 376 (1973). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 53

Pollock v. United States, 202 F.2d 281 (5th Cir. 1953). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Ponsford v. United States, 771 F.2d 1305 (9th Cir. 1985). . . . . . . . . . . . . 27, 28

Prudential Ins. Co. v. Turner & Newall, PLC,

137 F.R.D. 178 (D. Mass. 1991). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 40

Reisman v. Caplin, 375 U.S. 440 (1964). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 3, 18, 80

Reliance Ins. Co. v. Mast Constr. Co., 

159 F.3d 1311 (10th Cir. 1998). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 23
ix May 2006

Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc. v. Home Indem. Co., 

32 F.3d 851 (3d Cir. 1994).... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 39

Rice v. Paladin Enters., Inc., 128 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Richard A. Vaughn, DDS, P.C. v. Baldwin, 

950 F.2d 331 (6th Cir. 1991). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 54

In re Rigby, 199 B.R. 358 (E.D. Tex. 1995). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 44

Rivera v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 53 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 

1364 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 33

Robert v. United States, 364 F.3d 988 (8th Cir. 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 62, 78

SEC v. McGoff, 647 F.2d 185 (D.C. Cir. 1981). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Scharringhausen v. United States, 91 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 

651 (S.D. Cal. 2003).... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 29

Schulz v. IRS, 395 F.3d 463 (2d Cir. 2005). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 3

Schwarz v. Sec’y of Health & Human Services, 

73 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 1995). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 26

Scotty’s Contracting & Stone, Inc. v. United States, 

326 F.3d 785 (6th Cir. 2003). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 5, 13, 46

In re Sealed Case, 877 F.2d 976 (D.C. Cir. 1989). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40, 42

Sedco Intern’l, S.A. v. Cory, 683 F.2d 1201 (8th Cir. 1982). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Shapiro v. United States, 335 U.S. 1 (1948). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 58

Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364 (1966). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 23

Simkin v. United States, 715 F.2d 34 (2d Cir. 1983).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25, 26

Sound Video Unlimited, Inc. v. Video Shack, Inc., 

661 F. Supp. 1482 (N.D. Ill. 1987). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 43

Spell v. United States, 907 F.2d 36 (4th Cir. 1990).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 51

Standard Chartered Bank, PLC v. Ayala Int’l Holding, Inc., 

111 F.R.D. 76 (S.D.N.Y. 1986). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 39, 40

In re Steinhardt Partners, LP, 9 F.3d 230 (2d Cir. 1993). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Stringer v. United States, 776 F.2d 274 (11th Cir. 1985). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Strong v. United States, 57 F. Supp. 2d 908 (N.D. Cal. 1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Swidler & Berlin v. United States, 524 U.S. 399 (1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38, 39

Sylvestre v. United States, 978 F.2d 25 (1st Cir. 1992).. . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 18, 33

Tarplay v. United States, 86 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5833 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). . . . 33, 34

Tarpley v. United States, 1997 WL 767577 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

In re Tax Liabs. of John Does v. United States, 

866 F.2d 1015 (8th Cir. 1989). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 50

Teltron, Inc. v. Alexander, 132 F.R.D. 394 (E.D. Pa. 1990). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989).... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 52

In re Three Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum Dated 

Jan. 29, 1999, 191 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Tiffany Fine Arts, Inc. v. United States, 469 U.S. 310 (1985).. . . . . . . . . 3, 6, 78
x May 2006

Tilley v. United States, 94 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6942 (M.D.N.C. 2004). . . . . . . . 29

Tulsty v. United States, 871 F. Supp. 299 (E.D. Mich. 1994). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

In re Turner, 309 F.2d 69 (2d Cir. 1962). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 20

United States v. Abrahams, 

905 F.2d 1276 (9th Cir. 1990). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 17, 37, 50, 54, 79

United States v. Ackert, 169 F.3d 136 (2d Cir. 1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36, 38

United States v. Adlman, 134 F.3d 1194 (2d Cir. 1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

United States v. Admin. Co., 74 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5252 (N.D. Ill. 1994). . . . . 63

United States v. Admin. Enters., Inc., 

46 F.3d 670 (7th Cir. 1995). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 34, 63

United States v. Allee, 888 F.2d 208 (1st Cir. 1989). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

United States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349 (11th Cir. 1991). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

United States v. Arthur Young & Co., 

465 U.S. 805 (1984). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 2, 6, 17, 18, 20, 32, 49

United States v. Asay, 614 F.2d 655 (9th Cir. 1980). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59, 60

United States v. BDO Seidman, 337 F.3d 802 (7th Cir. 2003). . . . . . . 37, 46, 79

United States v. Baggot, 463 U.S. 476 (1983). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 48, 49

United States v. Balanced Fin. Mgmt., Inc., 

769 F.2d 1440 (10th Cir. 1985). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 4, 79

United States v. Ballard, 779 F.2d 287 (5th Cir. 1986). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

United States v. Bank of Moulton, 614 F.2d 1063 (5th Cir. 1980). . . . 18, 31, 33

United States v. Barrett, 837 F.2d 1341 (5th Cir. 1988). . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 62, 79

United States v. Barrier Indus., Inc., 1997 WL 16668 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). . . . . . 45

United States v. Barter System, Inc., 694 F.2d 163 (8th Cir. 1982). . . . . . . . . . 3

United States v. Beacon Fed. Sav. & Loan, 

718 F.2d 49 (2d Cir. 1983).... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 55

United States v. Becker, 259 F.2d 869 (2d Cir. 1958). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

United States v. Berg, 20 F.3d 304 (7th Cir. 1994). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13, 26

United States v. Bergonzi, 403 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

United States v. Berney, 713 F.2d 568 (10th Cir. 1983). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

United States v. Bichara, 826 F.2d 1037 (11th Cir. 1987). . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 32

United States v. Big D Enters., Inc., 184 F.3d 924 (8th Cir. 1999).. . . . . . . . . 27

United States v. Bisceglia, 420 U.S. 141 (1975). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 18, 64

United States v. Blackman, 72 F.3d 1418 (9th Cir. 1995). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

United States v. Bohonnon, 628 F. Supp. 1026 (D. Conn. 1985). . . . . . . . . . . 59

United States v. Brigham Young University, 

679 F.2d 1345 (10th Cir. 1982). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 65

United States v. Brockamp, 519 U.S. 347 (1997).... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 28

United States v. Brown, 918 F.2d 82 (9th Cir. 1990). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

United States v. C.E. Hobbs Foun. for Religious Training 

& Educ., Inc., 7 F.3d 169 (9th Cir. 1993). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 66
xi May 2006

United States v. Caltex Petroleum Corp., 12 F. Supp. 2d 545

(N.D. Tex. 1998).... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 66

United States v. Cecil E. Lucas Gen. Contractor, Inc., 

406 F. Supp. 1267 (D.S.C. 1975). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 62

United States v. Church of Scientology, 520 F.2d 818 (9th Cir. 1975). . . . . . . 79

United States v. Church of Scientology of Boston, Inc., 

933 F.2d 1074 (1st Cir. 1991). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 66

United States v. Church of Scientology Western U.S., 

973 F.2d 715 (9th Cir. 1992). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 66

United States v. Citizens State Bank, 612 F.2d 1091 (8th Cir. 1980). . . . . . . 51

United States v. City of Jackson, 359 F.3d 727 (5th Cir. 2004). . . . . . . . . 26, 27

United States v. Claes, 747 F.2d 491 (8th Cir. 1984). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

United States v. Clement, 668 F.2d 1010 (8th Cir. 1982). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 78

United States v. Cmty. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 

661 F.2d 694 (8th Cir. 1981). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 50, 62

United States v. Cox Cable Communications, 81 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 

2011(N.D. Fla. 1998). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 15

United States v. Crum, 288 F.3d 332 (7th Cir. 2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

United States v. Daffin, 653 F.2d 121 (4th Cir. 1981).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

United States v. Darwin Constr. Co., 

873 F.2d 750 (4th Cir. 1989). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 25, 59

United States v. Dauphin Deposit Trust Co., 

385 F.2d 129 (3d Cir. 1968).... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 7, 50

United States v. Davey, 543 F.2d 996 (2d Cir. 1976).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

United States v. Davis, 636 F.2d 1028 (5th Cir. 1981). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

United States v. Deak-Perera & Co., 566 F. Supp. 1398 (D.D.C. 1983). . . . . . 63

United States v. Derr, 968 F.2d 943 (9th Cir. 1992). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32, 71

United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605 (1984). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 56, 57

United States v. Drollinger, 80 F.3d 389 (9th Cir. 1996). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56, 61

United States v. El Paso Co., 682 F.2d 530 (5th Cir. 1982). . . . . . . . . . 7, 16, 35

United States v. Estate Pres. Servs., 

202 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2000). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 52

United States v. Euge, 444 U.S. 707 (1980). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 2

United States v. Evans, 113 F.3d 1457 (7th Cir. 1997).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35, 36

United States v. First Family Mortgage Corp., 

739 F.2d 1275 (7th Cir. 1984). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 18

United States v. First Nat’l Bank, 628 F.2d 871 (5th Cir. 1980). . . . . . . . . . . 80

United States v. First Nat’l State Bank, 

540 F.2d 619 (3d Cir. 1976).... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 17

United States v. First Nat’l State Bank, 

616 F.2d 668 (3d Cir. 1980).... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 9
xii May 2006

United States v. Fox, 721 F.2d 32 (2d Cir. 1983).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

United States v. Frederick, 182 F.3d 496 (7th Cir. 1999). . . . . . . . . . . 36, 45, 49

United States v. Freedom Church, 613 F.2d 316 (1st Cir. 1979). . . . . . . . 30, 59

United States v. Garden State Nat’l Bank, 607 F.2d 61 (3d Cir. 1979). . . . 4, 62

United States v. Garrett, 571 F.2d 1323 (5th Cir. 1978). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

United States v. Gilleran, 992 F.2d 232 (9th Cir. 1993). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 75

United States v. Giordano, 419 F.2d 564 (8th Cir. 1969). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 50

United States v. Goldman, 637 F.2d 664 (9th Cir. 1980). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

United States v. Graber, 81 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 429 (8th Cir. 1998).. . . . . . . . . 59

United States v. Hamilton Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n,

566 F. Supp. 755 (E.D.N.Y. 1983).... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 33

United States v. Harris, 628 F.2d 875 (5th Cir. 1980). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78, 79

United States v. Hatchett, 862 F.2d 1249 (6th Cir. 1988). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

United States v. Hayes, 722 F.2d 723 (11th Cir. 1984). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

United States v. Hefti, 879 F.2d 311 (8th Cir. 1989). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

United States v. Heubusch, 295 F. Supp. 2d 240 (W.D.N.Y. 2003). . . . . . . . . 55

United States v. Howard, 360 F.2d 373 (3d Cir. 1966). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 57

United States v. Huckaby, 776 F.2d 564 (5th Cir. 1985).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

United States v. Ins. Consultants of Knox, Inc., 

187 F.3d 755 (7th Cir. 1999). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 32

United States v. Jacobs, 117 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43, 44

United States v. Jillson, 84 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 99-7115 (S.D. Fla. 1999). . . . . 12

United States v. John G. Mutschler & Assocs., Inc., 

734 F.2d 363 (8th Cir. 1984). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 8

United States v. Jones, 581 F.2d 816 (10th Cir. 1978). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

United States v. Jones, 696 F.2d 1069 (4th Cir. 1982). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

United States v. Jose, 131 F.3d 1325 (9th Cir. 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 13, 17, 62

United States v. Judicial Watch, Inc., 

371 F.3d 824 (D.C. Cir. 2004). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 50, 51, 54, 78

United States v. KPMG, LLP, 237 F. Supp. 2d 35 (D.D.C. 2002). . . . . . . . . . . 47

United States v. Kaun, 827 F.2d 1144 (7th Cir. 1987). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

United States v. Kersting, 891 F.2d 1407 (9th Cir. 1989). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

United States v. Kis, 658 F.2d 526 (7th Cir. 1981). . . . . . . . . . . . . 21, 62, 78, 79

United States v. Kovel, 296 F.2d 918 (2d Cir. 1961). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

United States v. LaSalle Nat’l Bank, 437 U.S. 298 (1978). . . . . . 2, 5, 12, 61, 62

United States v. Ladd, 471 F. Supp. 1150 (N.D. Tex. 1979). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

United States v. Lang, 792 F.2d 1235 (4th Cir. 1986).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

United States v. Lask, 703 F.2d 293 (8th Cir. 1983). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

United States v. Lawless, 709 F.2d 485 (7th Cir. 1983). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37, 38
xiii May 2006

United States v. Lawn Builders of New England, Inc.,

 856 F.2d 388 (1st Cir. 1988).... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 59, 61

United States v. Lenon, 579 F.2d 420 (7th Cir. 1978). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

United States v. Leventhal, 961 F.2d 936 (11th Cir. 1992).. . . . . . . . . . . . 37, 38

United States v. Liebman, 742 F.2d 807 (3d Cir. 1984). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

United States v. Linsteadt, 724 F.2d 480 (5th Cir. 1984). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 50

United States v. Lippitt, 180 F.3d 873 (7th Cir. 1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

United States v. Lipshy, 492 F. Supp. 35 (N.D. Tex. 1979).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

United States v. Luther, 481 F.2d 429 (9th Cir. 1973). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 50

United States v. MIT, 129 F.3d 681 (1st Cir. 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39, 41

United States v. Malnik, 489 F.2d 682 (5th Cir. 1974). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

United States v. Marquardo, 149 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 1998).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

United States v. Matras, 487 F.2d 1271 (8th Cir. 1973). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

United States v. McAnlis, 721 F.2d 334 (11th Cir. 1983). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

United States v, 514 F.2d 368 (3d Cir. 1975).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75, 79

United States v. McCoy, 954 F.2d 1000 (5th Cir. 1992). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32, 79

United States v. Medlin, 986 F.2d 463 (11th Cir. 1993). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 55

United States v. Miller, 609 F.2d 336 (8th Cir. 1979). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

United States v. Millman, 822 F.2d 305 (2d Cir. 1987). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

United States v. Millstone Enters., Inc., 864 F.2d 21 (3d Cir. 1988). . . . . . . . 63

United States v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 440 F.3d 729 (6th Cir. 2006). . . 8, 9

United States v. Morgan, 761 F.2d 1009 (4th Cir. 1985). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 13

United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632 (1950). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

United States v. Mueller, 930 F.2d 10 (8th Cir. 1991). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

United States v. Nat’l Bank of South Dakota, 

622 F.2d 365 (8th Cir. 1980). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 51, 80

United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225 (1975). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 49

United States v. Nordbrock, 65 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 660 (D. Ariz. 1990). . . . . . . 59

United States v. Norwest Corp., 116 F.3d 1227 (8th Cir. 1997). . . . . . . 2, 66, 78

United States v. Norwood, 420 F.3d 888 (8th Cir. 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

United States v. Payne, 648 F.2d 361 (5th Cir. 1981). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

United States v. Pittman, 82 F.3d 152 (7th Cir. 1996). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

United States v. Pittsburgh Trade Exch., Inc., 

644 F.2d 302 (3d Cir. 1981).... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 65

United States v. Popkin, 623 F.2d 108 (9th Cir. 1980). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

United States v. Porter, 711 F.2d 1397 (7th Cir. 1983). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48 (1964). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 5-10, 30, 35, 54

United States v. Privitera, 75 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1266 (9th Cir. 1995). . . . . . . 10

United States v. Rakes, 136 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

United States v. Raymond, 228 F.3d 804 (7th Cir. 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52, 54
xiv May 2006

United States v. Reeder, 170 F.3d 93(1st Cir. 1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

United States v. Reis, 765 F.2d 1094 (11th Cir. 1985). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

United States v. Riewe, 676 F.2d 418 (10th Cir. 1982). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

United States v. Ritchie, 15 F.3d 592 (6th Cir. 1994). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37, 38

United States v. Rizzo, 539 F.2d 458 (5th Cir. 1976). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698 (11th Cir. 1988).. . . . . . . . . . . 24, 60, 61

United States v. Rockwell Int’l, 897 F.2d 1255 (3d Cir. 1990). . . . 2, 3, 7, 17, 47

United States v. Roebuck, 81 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 598 (S.D. Iowa 1997). . . . 28, 29

United States v. Roundtree, 420 F.2d 845 (5th Cir. 1969). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

United States v. Rue, 819 F.2d 1488 (8th Cir. 1987).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23, 57

United States v. Rylander, 460 U.S. 752 (1983). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23, 59, 60, 61

United States v. Salter, 432 F.2d 697 (1st Cir. 1970). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

United States v. Saunders, 951 F.2d 1065 (9th Cir. 1991). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

United States v. Schiff, 379 F.3d 621 (9th Cir. 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

United States v. Seetapun, 750 F.2d 601 (7th Cir. 1984). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

United States v. Sorrells, 877 F.2d 346 (5th Cir. 1989). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60, 61

United States v. Southwestern Bank & Trust Co., 

693 F.2d 994 (10th Cir. 1982). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 51

United States v. Stone, 976 F.2d 909 (4th Cir. 1992). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

United States v. Stuart, 489 U.S. 353 (1989).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 14, 68, 77

United States v. Stuckey, 646 F.2d 1369 (9th Cir. 1981). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

United States v. Teeple, 286 F.3d 1047 (8th Cir. 2002).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

United States v. Texas Heart Institute, 755 F.2d 469 (5th Cir. 1985). . . . 10, 18

United States v. Theodore, 479 F.2d 749 (4th Cir. 1973). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

United States v. Three Crows Corp., 324 F. Supp. 2d 203 (D. Me. 2004).. . . . 60

United States v. Tiffany Fine Arts, Inc., 718 F.2d 7 (2d Cir. 1983). . . . . . . . . 79

United States v. Toyota Motor Co., 569 F. Supp. 1158 (C.D. Cal. 1983). . . . . 32

United States v. Trader’s State Bank, 695 F.2d 1132 (9th Cir. 1983). . . . 51, 52

United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258 (1947). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

United States v. Wells, 929 F. Supp. 423 (S.D. Ga. 1996).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

United States v. White, 853 F.2d 107 (2d Cir. 1988). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 54

United States v. Will, 671 F.2d 963 (6th Cir. 1982). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

United States v. Wisnowski, 580 F.2d 149 (5th Cir. 1978). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

United States v. Wyatt, 637 F.2d 293 (5th Cir. 1981). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554 (1989).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 35, 43, 44

Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981).. . . . . . . . . . . . . 35, 37, 38, 49

Van Manen v. United States, 838 F. Supp. 335 (W.D. Mich. 1993). . . . . . . . . 28

Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 

455 U.S. 489 (1982). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 53

Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens 

Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748 (1976).... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 52
xv May 2006

Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003).... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 52

In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94 (2d Cir. 1987). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38, 40

Wahler v. IRS, 91 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1731 (W.D.N.C. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

In re Walsh, 623 F.2d 489 (7th Cir. 1980). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 37

Washington Metro. Area Transit Comm’n v. Holiday 

Tours, Inc., 559 F.2d 841 (D.C. Cir. 1977). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Weil v. Inv./Indicators, Research & Mgmt., 

647 F.2d 18 (9th Cir. 1981). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 38, 39

Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Republic of the Philippines, 

951 F.2d 1414 (3d Cir. 1991).... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 41

Wright v. United States, 964 F. Supp. 336 (M.D. Fla. 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Zicarelli v. New Jersey State Comm’n, 406 U.S. 472 (1972).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

STATUTES: 

18 U.S.C:

§ 401. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 23

Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.):

§ 274. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 68

§ 6103 . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 9, 12, 62, 67

§ 6503 .... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 69, 70, 71

§ 7210 . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 3, 25

§ 7402. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 3

§ 7503 . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 28

§ 7525 . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 36, 44-49

§ 7601 .... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 2, 5, 64

§ 7602. ... ... ... ... ... . 1-2, 5-6, 9, 12-13, 16, 20, 31, 50, 61, 63-64

§ 7603. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 11, 32-34

§ 7604. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 3, 9, 17

§ 7605. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 9

§ 7609 . ... ... ... ... ... ... . 11, 18, 27-30, 33-34, 64-65, 71, 80-81

§ 7611 . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 65

§ 7612 . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 66-67

§ 7701. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 31

28 U.S.C.§ 636. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 80
xvi May 2006

American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-357, 

§ 813, Stat. 1581.... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 46

Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984,

Pub. L. No. 98-549, 98 Stat. 2779 (47 U.S.C. § 551).. . . . . . . . . . 14-16

Equal Access to Justice Act (28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A)). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and

Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-206, § 3417(a), 

112 Stat. 685, 757-58. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 12, 44

Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 

(TEFRA), Pub. L. No. 97-248, § 333(a), 

96 Stat. 324, 621-22. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 12

MISCELLANEOUS:

Announcement 2002-63, 2002-2 C.B.72. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Chief Counsel Advisory, IRS CCA 200230034, 2002 WL 1730123.. . . . . 14

Chief Counsel Notice, IRS CCN CC-2004-034, 2004 WL 3210766. . . . . . 15

45 C.F.R.:

§ 160.103.... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 15

§ 164.512.... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 16

§ 164.514.... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 15-6

Deleg. Order No. 4 (Rev. 22), 1997 WL. 33479254. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Fed. R. App. P. 8. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 19-20

Fed. R. Civ. P.:

Rule 4. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 11, 28, 29, 75

Rule 8. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 74, 81

Rule 12. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 77

Rule 26. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 48, 49

Rule 62. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 19

Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(C)(I).... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 48
xvii May 2006

H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 105-599 (1998), reprinted in 1998-3 C.B. 755.. . . . . 45

H.R. Rep. No. 98-934, (1984), reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N 4655 . . . . 14

Internal Revenue Manual (I.R.M.):

§ 25.5.3.3(2). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 70

§ 4.45.1.2.... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 70

8 John Henry Wigmore, Evidence in Trials at 

Common Law § 2292. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 35

Prop. Treas. Reg. § 20.8199-91, 68 Fed. Reg. 44905-01 (2003),

 reprinted in 2003-2 C.B. 756. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 71

R. Fink, Tax Fraud—Audit Investigations, Prosecutions,

Vol. 1 § 7.05[2] at 7-53 (MB 1981).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

S. Rep. No. 97-494, vol. 1 (1982), reprinted in 1982

 U.S.C.C.A.N. 781, 1029.... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 77

S. Rep. No. 98-67 (1984). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 14

S. Rep. No. 105-174 (1998), reprinted in

1998-3 C.B. 607. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 45

Treasury Regulations (26 C.F.R.):

 § 301.7611-1.... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 65

 § 301.7602-1.... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 31

 § 301.7701-9.... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 31

United States Attorneys Manual:

§ 6-5.210... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 72

§ 6-5.221... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 72

§ 6-5.230... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 73, 82

§ 6-5.700... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 82
1 May 2006

I. INTRODUCTION

Section 7602 of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.)(26 U.S.C.) authorizes

the IRS to “examine any books, paper, records or other data” that may be

relevant to determine or collect the amount of tax, penalties, and interest

owed to the Government by any taxpayer. In the vast majority of

investigations, the taxpayer or third party voluntarily produces information

to the IRS. This may come in response to an IRS form known as an

Information Document Request (IDR), a letter from the Service, or just in the

course of a conversation between an IRS agent or officer and a taxpayer or

third party.

In the event the person who has the information refuses to provide it

voluntarily or if the Service for whatever reason decides not to make an

informal request and chooses to proceed more formally, Congress has given

the IRS the power to issue an administrative summons in order to compel a

taxpayer or a third party to produce the information – in the form of

documents or testimony or both – for use in its investigation. The summons

will describe the information requested and the investigation to which the

IRS thinks that information may be relevant. The summons will also specify

where and when the information must be produced. If the summoned party

does not comply, the IRS must decide whether it wishes to pursue the matter.

If it does, the Service must ask the Department of Justice to obtain a court

order enforcing the summons. If the court orders enforcement and the

summoned party still refuses to produce the summoned information, the

refusal may result in sanctions for civil or criminal contempt.

 

As an attorney for the Department of Justice, one of the most important

things for you to remember when you receive a summons enforcement case is

that the summoned information is important to an ongoing investigation. 

Because the summons enforcement process, even when expedited, tends to be

time-consuming, it is unlikely that an agent or revenue officer would ask for

enforcement unless they really need the information to complete their work. 

In most cases, the statute of limitations on making assessments, collecting

the taxes, or making a decision to bring a criminal case will still be running

while your summons enforcement case is pending. All of this means that for

summons enforcement to be a valuable tool, cases must be brought and

pursued on an expedited basis. It is our hope that the information in this

Manual will help you litigate the cases knowledgeably and expeditiously. 
2 May 2006

II. LAW

A. IRS SUMMONS AUTHORITY

The United States’ system of taxation relies on self-assessment and the

good faith and integrity of each taxpayer to disclose completely and honestly

all information relevant to his tax liability. Nonetheless, “it would be naive to

ignore the reality that some persons attempt to outwit the system.” United

States v. Bisceglia, 420 U.S. 141, 145 (1975). Thus, Congress has charged the

Secretary of the Treasury and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue with

the responsibility of administering and enforcing the Internal Revenue Code. 

See I.R.C. §§ 7601 and 7602; Madison v. United States, 758 F.2d 573, 574

(11th Cir. 1985).

To this end, Section 7601 of the Code directs the Secretary to make

inquiries into the tax liability of every person who may be liable to pay any

internal revenue tax. Codner v. United States, 17 F.3d 1331, 1332 (10th Cir.

1994). In turn, Section 7602 authorizes the Secretary to examine books,

papers, records, or other data, to issue summonses, and to take testimony for

the purpose of: (1) “ascertaining the correctness of any return,” (2) “making a

return where none has been made,” (3) “determining the liability of any

person for any internal revenue tax . . . ,” (4) “collecting any such liability,” or

(5) “inquiring into any offense connected with the administration or

enforcement of the internal revenue laws.” See, e.g., United States v. Euge,

444 U.S. 707, 710-11 (1980); United States v. LaSalle Nat’l Bank, 437 U.S.

298, 308 (1978); United States v. Rockwell Int’l, 897 F.2d 1255, 1261 (3d Cir.

1990).

The summons statutes, I.R.C. §§ 7602-7613, provide the IRS with an

investigative device that is to be interpreted broadly in favor of the IRS. See

Euge, 444 U.S. at 714-15 (holding that the language of § 7602 includes

authority to summons some physical evidence, and upholding a summons for

handwriting exemplars). Congress’s intent was to foster effective tax

investigations by giving the IRS expansive information-gathering authority. 

See United States v. Arthur Young & Co., 465 U.S. 805, 816 (1984) (citing

Bisceglia, 420 U.S. at 146); United States v. Norwest Corp., 116 F.3d 1227,

1231-32 (8th Cir. 1997). Restrictions on the summons power are to be

avoided, absent unambiguous Congressional direction. See Arthur Young,

465 U.S. at 816; Euge, 444 U.S. at 715. See also United States v. Stuart, 489

U.S. 353, 364 (1989); Robert v. United States, 364 F.3d 988, 996 (8th Cir.

2004). The Supreme Court has cautioned against restricting the summons
 If the summoned party’s refusal is willful, he may also be prosecuted under 1

I.R.C. § 7210. See United States v. Becker, 259 F.2d 869 (2d Cir. 1958) (affirming a

conviction for violating Section 7210, where the defendant had willfully and

knowingly neglected to produce certain of the books and papers called for under a

summons issued by an IRS special agent); see also, Reisman v. Caplin, 375 U.S.

440, 446 (1964) (“any person summoned who ‘neglects to appear or to produce’ may

be prosecuted under § 7210”). Similarly, if the summoned party wholly makes

default or contumaciously refuses to comply, he may be subject to sanctions under

I.R.C. § 7604(b), including arrest and punishment for contempt. See Reisman, 375

U.S. at 448. Indeed, when a Section 7604(b) complaint is filed, “[i]f the taxpayer

has contumaciously refused to comply with the administrative summons and the

Service fears he may flee the jurisdiction, application for the sanctions available

under § 7604(b) might be made simultaneously with the filing of the complaint.” 

United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 58 n.18 (1964). But see Schulz v. IRS, 395

F.3d 463, reh’g granted, 413 F.3d 304 (2d Cir. 2005) (without citing or

discussing Becker, holding that a summoned party cannot be held in contempt or

subjected to indictment under Section 7210 absent an enforcement order.)

3 May 2006

authority absent express legislative direction. See Tiffany Fine Arts, Inc. v.

United States, 469 U.S. 310, 318 (1985); United States v. Barter Sys., Inc., 694

F.2d 163, 167 (8th Cir. 1982); United States v. Clement, 668 F.2d 1010, 1013

(8th Cir. 1982).

Once a summons is issued, however, it is not self-enforcing. If the person

to whom a summons is issued fails to comply, the Government must seek

judicial enforcement under I.R.C. §§ 7402(b) and 7604(a). These sections

1

confer authority upon the United States district courts to issue orders

compelling compliance with an Internal Revenue Service summons. Because

the enforcement of a summons invokes the process of the court, a court will

not enforce a summons if enforcement would constitute an abuse of that

process. United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 58 (1964); Rockwell Int’l, 897

F.2d at 1261.

B. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A SUMMONS

The validity of an IRS summons may come before a district court in one

of two ways. First, because a summons is not self-enforcing, the Government

may bring an enforcement proceeding seeking a court order directing

compliance with the summons. (See Section II(B)(3).) Second, in the case of a

third-party summons, certain persons may be entitled to bring a proceeding

to quash the summons. (See Section II(B)(4).) Under no circumstance,
4 May 2006

however, is a summoned party entitled to bring a proceeding to quash the

summons. (Id.) 

1. Burdens of production and persuasion

However a summons proceeding is initiated, the standard and burden of

proof is the same. In either case, the Government bears the ultimate burden

of persuasion. S. Rep. No. 97-494, vol. 1, at 283 (1982), reprinted in 1982

U.S.C.C.A.N. 781, 1029 (“[a]lthough an action to quash the summons must be

instituted by the taxpayer, the ultimate burden of persuasion with respect to

its right to enforcement of the summons will remain on the Secretary, as

under current law”); see Crystal v. United States, 172 F.3d 1141, 1143-44 (9th

Cir. 1999) (stating that the Government must make the same showing

whether to “defeat a petition to quash, or to enforce a summons”).

The Government has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing

that the summons is valid. (See Section II(B)(2).) But the Government's

burden is “a slight one” that can be satisfied by a declaration from the

investigating agent. Crystal, 172 F.3d at 1144; United States v. Garden State

Nat’l Bank, 607 F.2d 61, 68 (3d Cir. 1979); Alphin v. United States, 809 F.2d

236, 238 (4th Cir. 1987); 2121 Arlington Heights Corp. v. IRS, 109 F.3d 1221,

1224 (7th Cir. 1997); ; United States v. Balanced Fin. Mgmt., Inc., 769 F.2d

1440, 1443 (10th Cir. 1985); In re Newton, 718 F.2d 1015, 1019 (11th Cir.

1983).

Once the Government makes its prima facie case, the opposing party has

a heavy burden to show that enforcement would be an “abuse of process.” 

Fortney v. United States, 59 F.3d 117, 120 (9th Cir. 1995). To carry this

burden the challenger must show more than mere legal conclusions, and must

allege specific facts and evidence to support his allegations. Garden State

Nat’l Bank, 607 F.2d at 68; Liberty Fin. Servs. v. United States, 778 F.2d

1390, 1393 (9th Cir. 1985).

2. Requirements for a valid summons

The validity of a summons is measured by standards established both by

the Supreme Court and by Congress.
5 May 2006

a. The Supreme Court’s Powell requirements

The Supreme Court established the framework for judicial review of a

summons in United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48 (1964). In that case the

Court held that the IRS did not have to satisfy any standard of probable

cause in order to issue a valid summons. All that the Government must show

is that the summons (1) is issued for a legitimate purpose; (2) seeks

information that may be relevant to that purpose; (3) seeks information that

is not already within the IRS’s possession; and (4) satisfies all administrative

steps required by the Internal Revenue Code. Powell, 379 U.S. at 57-58.

(1) The summons was issued for a legitimate purpose

Congress has given the IRS broad directions under Section 7601 to

investigate “all persons . . . who may be liable” for taxes. Sections 7602(a)

and (b) delineate the purposes for which an IRS summons may be issued:

• Ascertaining the correctness of any return,

• Making a return were none has been made,

• Determining the liability of any person for any internal revenue tax

or the liability at law or in equity of any transferee or fiduciary of

any person in respect of any internal revenue tax,

• Collecting any such liability, or

• Inquiring into any offense connected with the administration or

enforcement of the internal revenue laws.

In Powell, the Supreme Court thus noted that the IRS can issue a summons

to investigate “‘merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even just

because it wants assurance that it is not.’” 379 U.S. at 57 (quoting United

States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 642-43 (1950)).

When the Supreme Court later held that a summons could not be issued

in aid of a criminal investigation, United States v. LaSalle Nat’l Bank, 437

U.S. 298 (1978), Congress enacted Section 7602(b) permitting the use of

summons to gather information in aid of a criminal investigation. See

Scotty’s Contracting & Stone, Inc. v. United States, 326 F.3d 785 (6th Cir.

2003). Section 7602(d), however, prohibits the issuance or the enforcement of

a summons with respect to a person if there is in effect a “Justice Department

referral” as defined in the statute. (See Section II(B)(2)(b).)
6 May 2006

(2) The summoned information may be relevant

Section 7602 authorizes the IRS to examine “any books, papers, records,

or other data which may be relevant or material.” (Emphasis added.) In

United States v. Arthur Young & Co., 465 U.S. 805, 814 (1984), the Court

stated that the language “may be” reflects Congress’s express intention to

allow the IRS to obtain “items of even potential relevance to an ongoing

investigation, without reference to its admissibility.” (Emphasis in original.) 

The IRS need not show that the “documents it seeks are actually relevant in

any technical, evidentiary sense.” Arthur Young, 465 U.S. at 814. In Powell,

the Supreme Court noted that the IRS can issue a summons to investigate

“‘merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even just because it

wants assurance that it is not.’” 379 U.S. at 57 (quoting Morton Salt, 338 U.S.

642-43). Thus, in applying the Powell test, the question is not whether the

records sought, when disclosed, will contradict a taxpayer’s return, but

whether the records “might” throw light upon the correctness of a return. 

Arthur Young, 465 U.S. at 814-15 & n.11. The IRS need not accept the word

of the summoned party that records are not relevant. It is entitled to

determine that fact for itself. See Tiffany Fine Arts, Inc. v. United States, 469

U.S. 310, 323 (1985). 

Relevancy determinations necessarily are factual and normally are

reviewed on appeal only for clear error. United States v. Goldman, 637 F.2d

664, 667 (9th Cir. 1980). Relying on the Supreme Court’s pronouncements in

Arthur Young, the various courts of appeals have had little trouble in

construing the Powell relevance standard broadly.

C Sylvestre v. United States, 978 F.2d 25, 27 (1st Cir. 1992) (records of

taxpayer’s savings accounts, checking accounts, and the like are

relevant to purpose of determining possible income tax liability).

C PAA Mgmt., Ltd. v. United States, 962 F.2d 212, 217-18 (2d Cir.

1992) (IRS may seek enforcement of summons even after issuance of

statutory notice of deficiency because Tax Court could redetermine

the correct amount of the deficiency).

C United States v. White, 853 F.2d 107, 116-17 (2d Cir. 1988)

(summons for records of attorney/executor of estate enforced as

having “potential” relevance to determination whether fees were

deductible under state law).
7 May 2006

C United States v. Rockwell Int’l, 897 F.2d 1255, 1263 (3d Cir. 1990)

(liberal standard of relevance to be applied to determine whether

material in “free reserve file” is relevant to investigation of

correctness of corporation’s 1983 tax return).

C Barquero v. United States, 18 F.3d 1311, 1318 (5th Cir. 1994) (IRS

may summon records for time-barred years so long as those records

are relevant to later years under investigation).

C United States v. El Paso Co., 682 F.2d 530, 537 (5th Cir. 1982),

(taxpayer’s “tax-pool analysis” documents that focus on questionable

positions in the tax return are highly relevant even though they

were not used in preparing the tax return).

C United States v. Abrahams, 905 F.2d 1276, 1279 n.1, 1281 (9th Cir.

1990) (summons to attorney for “all documents relating to

preparation of income tax returns for others” enforced since such

documents were likely to “throw light” on clients’ tax returns)

overruled on other grounds by United States v. Jose, 131 F.3d 1325,

1329 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).

C United States v. Giordano, 419 F.2d 564, 568 (8th Cir. 1969) (holding

that the Commissioner is “licensed to fish”). But see United States v.

Dauphin Deposit Trust Co., 385 F.2d 129, 131 (3d Cir. 1968) (IRS “is

not entitled to go on a fishing expedition . . . . [but] must identify

with some precision the documents it wishes to inspect”).

The relevancy test for a summons is a relatively low one, but it is not

non-existent. The Government must establish that there is some realistic

expectation (more than an idle hope) that the summoned information may be

relevant to its investigation. Although the summoned documents or

information need not meet the evidentiary relevancy requirement for

admissibility, the Government should show some logical connection between

the information sought and the purpose of the exam. In most cases, the

potential relevance of the summoned information is self-evident. In other

instances, an explanation may be helpful.

C United States v. Matras, 487 F.2d 1271, 1275 (8th Cir. 1973) (A

corporation not required to produce copies of its budgets when the

IRS justified its request on the need for a “roadmap” to better

understand the corporation’s operations. “The term ‘relevant’
8 May 2006

connotes and encompasses more than ‘convenience.’ . . . If we were

to accede to the government’s view, it is difficult to imagine

corporate materials that might not contribute to a more

comprehensive understanding of the workings of the corporation,

and thus, according to the government, be deemed relevant to the

tax investigation.”).

C David H. Tedder & Assocs. v. United States, 77 F.3d 1166, 1169 (9th

Cir. 1996) (names of a law firm’s clients need not be revealed when

the IRS did not demonstrate that the specific client identities “might

throw light upon the correctness” of the taxpayer’s return).

C United States v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 440 F.3d 729 (6th Cir.

2006) (“The present case exemplifies an exceptional circumstance

where automatic reliance upon an agent’s affidavit is not adequate

because (1) the subpoena is directed to a third party, not to the

taxpayer being investigated, (2) the IRS seeks a voluminous amount

of highly sensitive propriety information about Monumental’s

general administration of its products, (3) the IRS has opposed the

imposition of a protective order, and (4) the magistrate judge, who

spent years considering the scope of the summons, found that the

IRS was seeking ‘some irrelevant information.’”)

The results in these cases thus might have been different if the potential

relevance of the summoned information had been better described.

(3) The summoned information is not already in the

possession of the IRS

To satisfy the third Powell requirement, the IRS must show that the

summoned information is not already in the IRS’s possession. As noted

above, the simple statement in the IRS agent’s declaration that the

summoned information is not in the possession of the IRS is sufficient to shift

the burden of proof to the party opposing enforcement to come forward with

evidence to the contrary. This Powell requirement may not be satisfied,

however, when someone in the IRS other than the declaring agent has the

summoned information and it is available for use in the exam.

The courts have “declined to apply a literal interpretation of this Powell

criterion in favor of a practical approach to IRS accessibility.” United States v.
9 May 2006

John G. Mutschler & Assocs., Inc., 734 F.2d 363, 367-68 (8th Cir. 1984). The

Fifth Circuit explained this “practical approach” as follows:

The “already possessed by government” defense originated in the passage

of United States v. Powell [ ], for which the Supreme Court cited no

authority. Powell construed not only the implicit prerequisites to

enforceability of a summons issued under 26 U.S.C. §§ 7602, 7604(b), but

also the explicit limitation contained in 26 U.S.C. § 7605(b), which

forbids “unnecessary” summonses. Read in context, we construe the

“already possessed” principle enunciated by Powell as a gloss on

§ 7605(b)’s prohibition of “unnecessary” summonses, rather than an

absolute prohibition against the enforcement of any summons to the

extent that it requests the production of information already in the

possession of the IRS.

United States v. Davis, 636 F.2d 1028, 1037 (5th Cir. 1981). But see United

States v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 440 F.3d 729 (6th Cir. 2006) (rejecting

claim that documents obtained by IRS in the course of investigating another

taxpayer were not accessible because of the confidentiality provisions of I.R.C. 

§ 6103(a)).

The following are instances where the courts have applied the practical

approach to IRS accessibility. 

C Difficult to retrieve - United States v. First Nat’l State Bank, 616

F.2d 668, 673-74 (3d Cir. 1980) (the IRS can summon documents

that may be in its possession but which are difficult to retrieve). See

also United States v. Linsteadt, 724 F.2d 480, 484 (5th Cir. 1984); cf.

United States v. Theodore, 479 F.2d 749, 755 (4th Cir. 1973) (court

refused to enforce a summons directed to a tax preparer for copies of

all the returns of his clients for three years because there was no

record evidence that the IRS could not readily retrieve the

information).

C Different versions - United States v. Davey, 543 F.2d 996, 1001 (2d

Cir. 1976) (may demand production of original documents rather

than copies); United States v. Luther, 481 F.2d 429, 432 (9th Cir.

1973) (access to records from other sources “does not destroy the

government’s right to inspect the original and primary records of the

Corporation”); United States v. Daffin, 653 F.2d 121, 124 (4th Cir.
10 May 2006

1981) (retained copies of tax returns to compare with the originals

filed with the IRS).

C Second look - Spell v. United States, 907 F.2d 36, 38 (4th Cir. 1990)

(taxpayer may not refuse to comply with summons issued by special

agent merely because his returns were examined previously by

revenue agent); United States v. Lang, 792 F.2d 1235, 1242 (4th Cir.

1986) (allowing a “second look” for a different and additional

purpose); United States v. Morgan, 761 F.2d 1009, 1011 (4th Cir.

1985) (special agent’s fraud inquiry is considered a continuation of

the original, uncompleted audit); United States v. Popkin, 623 F.2d

108, 109 (9th Cir. 1980) (per curiam) (examination by revenue agent

does not “fulfill the needs of a special agent investigating fraud”);

United States v. Lenon, 579 F.2d 420, 422 (7th Cir. 1978) (fraud

investigation “different in both approach and extent” from a routine

audit); United States v. Garrett, 571 F.2d 1323, 1328-29 (5th Cir.

1978) (IRS’s entitlement to a single meaningful examination may

necessitate additional scrutiny of documents by the special agent).

(4) The summons meets all administrative requirements

The fourth element of the Powell test is that the IRS comply with the

administrative steps required by the Code. These steps include service on the

summoned party and, in the case of a third-party summons, notice to any

person identified in the summons.

Courts occasionally have excused minor failures to comply with the

required administrative steps provided that the taxpayer has not been

prejudiced thereby. United States v. Texas Heart Inst., 755 F.2d 469, 478 (5th

Cir. 1985) (provided that the taxpayer has had “every benefit of the

administrative steps required by the Code, a failure by the IRS to meet the

technical niceties of the statute will not bar enforcement”) (emphasis in

original), overruled on other grounds, United States v. Barrett, 837 F.2d 1341

(5th Cir. 1988); United States v. Privitera, 75 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1266, 1266

(9th Cir. 1995) (“Minor violations will be excused where the IRS acts in good

faith and there is no prejudice to the taxpayer.”). But even though the Sixth

Circuit allowed enforcement of a summons despite a nonprejudicial

administrative deficiency, it cautioned that it expected the IRS to strictly

adhere to all administrative niceties in future cases. See Cook v. United

States, 104 F.3d 886 (6th Cir. 1997). In other words, “technical” violations

should be not treated lightly.
11 May 2006

• Service on the summoned party - Section 7603 specifies how a

summons should be served on the summoned party. Part (a) provides the

general method of service – “by an attested copy delivered in hand to the

person to whom it is directed, or left at his last and usual place of abode.”

An attested copy is merely a copy of the original summons with an signed

statement on its face that it is a true and accurate copy. Mimick v.

United States, 952 F.2d 230 (8th Cir. 1991). Part (b) provides that

summonses issued to “third-party recordkeepers,” as that term is defined

in Section 7603(b)(2), may be served “by certified or registered mail to the

last known address” of the summoned party. I.R.C. § 7603(b)(1) “Thirdparty recordkeepers” include banks, financial institutions, credit card

companies, attorneys, and accountants. The mandates of Rule 4 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply to the service of IRS

summonses. United States v. Gilleran, 992 F.2d 232, 233 (9th Cir. 1993);

United States v. Bichara, 826 F.2d 1037, 1039 (11th Cir. 1987). Section

7603(a) also provides that “a certificate of service signed by the person

serving the summons shall be evidence of the facts it states on the

hearing of an application for the enforcement of the summons.”

• Notice to others of a third-party summons - Section 7609(a)(1)

requires that a person identified in a summons receive notice if the

summons seeks information “with respect to” that person. The most

obvious case is when a third party (i.e., bank) is summoned to produce

records relating to a taxpayer’s examination. In that case the taxpayer

must receive notice of the summons. The less obvious case is when a

third party is summoned to produce another person’s records (i.e.,

parent’s, girlfriend’s) in connection with a taxpayer’s examination. Any

other person whose records are identified in the summons should receive

notice.

Section 7609(a) also establishes the method of such notice, which can

be provided in person or by certified or registered mail. It must be served

within three days after the summons is served and at least 23 days

before the summons compliance date. The notice must include a copy of

the summons and an explanation of that person’s right to bring a

proceeding to quash the summons. Several courts have held that the

notice copy need not include the attestation required of the copy served

on the summoned party. Codner v. United States, 17 F.3d 1331, 1333-34

(10th Cir. 1994); Fortney v. United States, 59 F.3d 117, 120-21 (9th Cir.

1995). In United States v. Mimick, 952 F.2d at 231-32, however, the
12 May 2006

Eighth Circuit held that attested copies must be served on both the

summoned party and any noticee.

• Notice to taxpayer of third-party contact - Section 7602(c), added to

the Code as part of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and

Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-206, § 3417(a), 112 Stat. 685, 757-58,

provides that “[a]n officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service

may not contact any person other than the taxpayer with respect to the

determination or collection of the tax liability of such taxpayer without

providing reasonable notice in advance to the taxpayer that contacts with

persons other than the taxpayer may be made.” Failure to notify

taxpayer of a third-party contact is a serious defect. In United States v.

Jillson, 84 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 99-7115 (S.D. Fla. 1999), the court denied

enforcement of summonses to third parties because the IRS had not

issued a notice of contact to the taxpayer prior to issuing the summonses.

b. No “Justice Department referral” is in effect - § 7602(d)

In addition to satisfying the Powell requirements, a summons must also

satisfy a specific statutory requirement. In LaSalle Nat’l Bank, 437 U.S. 298

(1978), the Supreme Court held that a summons could not be issued in aid of

a criminal investigation. Congress responded four years later by enacting

Section 7602(b), which permits the use of a summons to gather information in

aid of a criminal investigation. Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of

1982 (TEFRA), Pub. L. No. 97-248, § 333(a), 96 Stat. 324, 621-22. Section

7602(d), however, enacted at the same time, precludes either the issuance of a

summons or the commencement of a proceeding to enforce it once a “Justice

Department referral” is in effect with respect to the person whose liabilities

are under investigation. The phrase “Justice Department referral” is a term

of art and embraces the following:

A Justice Department referral is in effect with respect to any person if --

(i) the Secretary has recommended to the Attorney General a grand jury

investigation of, or the criminal prosecution of, such person for any

offense connected with the administration or enforcement of the internal

revenue laws, or

(ii) any request is made under section 6103(h)(3)(B) for the disclosure of

any return or return information (within the meaning of section 6103(b))

relating to such person.
13 May 2006

I.R.C. § 7602(d)(2)(A).

Each taxable period and each tax imposed by a separate IRC chapter are

treated separately. I.R.C. § 7602(d)(3). Thus, a summons issued with respect

to the examination of the 1979 and 1980 years was proper, despite an

indictment alleging tax crimes for 1976 and 1977. Commissioner v. Hayes,

631 F. Supp. 785, 787 (N.D. Cal. 1985). See also United States v. Pittman, 82

F.3d 152, 157 (7th Cir. 1996) (offenses related to taxes from different chapters

of the IRC or offenses under different titles, such as Title 26 (taxes) and Title

31 (money laundering) are treated separately).

In general, courts have recognized that Section 7602(d) created a bright

line, with a “Justice Department referral” being the line of demarcation. See

Scotty’s Contracting & Stone, 326 F.3d 785 (collecting cases). But the law in

the Fourth and Seventh Circuits is not entirely clear. United States v. Berg,

20 F.3d 304, 309 n.6 (7th Cir. 1994) (noting that the IRS “cannot use its

summons authority if its only purpose is to gather evidence for a criminal

investigation, (i.e. if it has “‘no civil purpose whatsoever’ and [it] ‘has

abandoned any institutional pursuit of civil tax determination.’”) (citations

omitted). Compare Hintze v. IRS, 879 F.2d 121, 127 (4th Cir. 1989) (stating

that the summons may have been quashed if the taxpayers had shown “that

the IRS was pursuing its investigation for the sole purpose of building a case

on anticipated criminal charges”), overruled on other grounds, Church of

Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 15 n.8 (1992), with Morgan, 761 F.2d

at 1012 (stating that Section 7602(d) “drew a ‘bright line’ indicating that the

summons power ended at the point where an investigation was referred to the

Justice Department for prosecution” (citations omitted)). In the Fourth and

Seventh Circuits, it is important that the agent’s declaration clearly state

that the IRS has not abandoned its civil purpose. Thus, for example, when a

summons is issued by a Special Agent in aid of a criminal investigation, the

declaration should indicate that any related civil liabilities, which may

include penalties, have not been finally determined and the information

sought is relevant to that determination as well.

The IRS may not issue a summons or seek to enforce it if the IRS already

has made an institutional decision to make a “Department of Justice

referral.” Such conduct would constitute bad faith. United States v. Jose, 131

F.3d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (“It is well established that the IRS

is acting in bad faith if it pursues a summons enforcement after having

already decided to make a recommendation for prosecution . . . .”) (citing
 Pub. L. No. 98-549, 98 Stat. 2779. 2

 The Senate report states that “[t]he phrase ‘to collect personally identifiable 3

information’ covers the various ways that individuals can be identified, including

name, address, and social security number.” S. Rep. No. 98-67, at 28 (1984). The

cognate House report, paraphrasing the statute, states that “‘personally

identifiable information’ . . . would include specific information about the

subscriber, or a list of names and addresses on which the subscriber is included, but

does not include aggregate information about subscribers which does not identify

particular persons.” H.R. Rep. No. 98-934, at 79 (1984), reprinted in 1984

U.S.C.C.A.N 4655, 4716.

14 May 2006

LaSalle Nat’l Bank, 437 U.S. at 317 and United States v. Stuart, 489 U.S.

353, 362 (1989)). 

c. Requirements to summon certain subject matters

Special procedures apply to summonses seeking information concerning

certain subjects.

(1) Cable Communications Policy Act

The Service takes the position that it must comply with Section 631 the

Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, 47 U.S.C. § 551, when issuing a 2

summons to a cable company. Chief Counsel Advisory, IRS CCA 200230034,

2002 WL 1730123. Section 551(c)(1) generally prohibits a cable company

from disclosing a subscriber’s “personally identifiable information,” without

the prior written or electronic consent of the subscriber concerned. 

“Personally identifiable information” “does not include any record of

aggregate data which does not identify particular persons.” 47 U.S.C.

§ 551(a)(2)(A).3

If the cable company provides either internet or telephone service in

addition to cable television service, however, disclosure of the information

relevant to the internet or telephone service is not restricted by Section 551 of

the Cable Act. Disclosure of information relevant to internet or telephone

service is permitted under Section 2703(c)(2) of the Electronic

Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C., and Section 551(c)(2)(D) of the Cable

Act. See In re Application of the United States of Am. for an Order Directed to

Cablevision Sys. Corp., 158 F. Supp. 2d 644 (D. Md. 2001).
 Exceptions are also made if the disclosure is necessary to render (or conduct a 4

legitimate business activity related to) a service to the subscriber (Section

551(c)(2)(A)), the disclosure is of the subscriber’s name and address to any cable or

other service, provided certain conditions are satisfied (Section 551(c)(2)(C)), or the

disclosure is to a government entity as authorized under chapters 119, 121, or 206

of Title 18, provided the disclosure does not reveal the subscriber’s selection of video

programming (Section 551(c)(2)(D)).

15 May 2006

Where Section 551 of the Cable Act applies, it is subject to several

exceptions, including one that permits disclosure in response to a court order

obtained by a governmental entity. 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). Such an order, 4

however, (1) must be based on clear and convincing evidence that the

subscriber is reasonably suspected of having engaged in criminal activity and

that the information sought would be material evidence in the case, and (2)

must be obtained in a proceeding in which the subscriber is afforded the

opportunity to appear and contest the claim. 47 U.S.C. § 551(h). See United

States v. Cox Cable Communications, 81 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2011 (N.D. Fla.

1998) (holding the IRS satisfied the requirements of Section 551(h) with the

agent’s declaration).

(2) Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act

(HIPAA)

When the IRS requests health information protected by the Health

Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 Privacy

Regulations, 45 C.F.R. parts 160 and 164, from a “covered entity” (e.g., a

physician, healthcare organization, health insurer, etc.), it may have

additional burdens to meet in order to secure the information. “Protected

health information” is defined, inter alia, as information, in any form,

maintained by a covered entity that can identify the individual and relates to

that individual’s health, receipt of healthcare services, or the past, present, or

future payment for the healthcare services provided. See 45 C.F.R. § 160.103. 

Additionally, documents containing information that would identify the

healthcare recipient’s relatives, employers, or household members can also

qualify as protected information. 45 C.F.R. § 164.514(b).

Three exceptions allow the Service to obtain protected health information

while enforcing the Internal Revenue Code: the consent of the taxpayer, the

law enforcement exception, and the administrative and judicial proceedings

exception. Chief Counsel Notice CC-2004-034, addresses the standards for

applying those exceptions. IRS CCN CC-2004-034, 2004 WL 3210766.
16 May 2006

An administrative summons issued under Section 7602(a)(2) qualifies

under the law enforcement exception. In addition to the usual requirements

for enforcement, however, a summons seeking protected health information

must satisfy a three-pronged test: (1) the information sought must be

“relevant and material” to a “legitimate law enforcement inquiry”; (2) the

request must be “specific and limited in scope to the extent reasonably

practicable in light of the purpose for which the information is sought”; and

(3) “[d]e-identified information could not reasonably be used.” 45 C.F.R.

§ 164.512(f)(1)(ii)(C). The privacy rules list eighteen specific identifiers,

ranging from traditional categories such as name and address to less

traditional categories such as web addresses, biometric identifiers (e.g., finger

and voice prints), account numbers, and vehicle identification numbers (e.g.,

license plates).

To satisfy the requirements of the three-pronged test, the Service is to

supplement any summons for protected health information with a statement

that the three additional requirements have been met. CC-2004-034, *4. A

covered entity may reasonably rely on such a statement and produce the

summoned information. 45 C.F.R. § 164.514(h)(2). A declaration

accompanying a request to bring a summons enforcement action should

incorporate the requirements of the three-pronged test and represent that

they have been satisfied.

(3) Tax accrual workpapers

Special rules apply when issuing and seeking enforcement of a summons

issued for tax accrual workpapers. Enforcement of such summonses should

be handled by the Tax Division. As a matter of practice, the Deputy Assistant

Attorney General (Civil Trial Matters) and the appropriate Section Chief

should be notified whenever a suit to enforce a summons for tax accrual

workpapers has been received by the Tax Division.

Tax accrual workpapers are documents and memoranda relating to an

auditor's evaluation of a taxpayer’s reserves for contingent tax liabilities. 

Such workpapers may contain information pertaining to the taxpayer’s

financial transactions, identify questionable positions taken on tax returns,

and reflect the auditor’s opinions regarding the validity of such positions. 

United States v. Arthur Young & Co., 465 U.S. 805 (1984); United States v. El

Paso Co., 682 F.2d 530, 533-35 (5th Cir. 1982). Tax accrual workpapers are

generally prepared as a part of the process of auditing a corporation’s
 In United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554 , 561(1989), the Supreme Court found 5

itself “evenly divided with respect to the issue of the power of a district court to

place restrictions upon the dissemination by the IRS of information obtained

through a § 7604 subpoena action” and therefore affirmed the judgment of the

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, insofar as it upheld the district court’s

conditional-enforcement order. Such an affirmance is not binding in other cases, see

Hertz v. Woodman, 218 U.S. 205, 213-14 (1910), and the Ninth Circuit later

reversed its Zolin decision in Jose, 131 F.3d at 1329.

17 May 2006

financial statements, not as part of the tax return preparation process. The

tax accrual workpapers can be prepared by in-house or outside accountants. 

In Arthur Young, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the

workpapers were privileged. A summons for tax accrual workpapers is

enforceable so long as the documents meet the low threshold of relevance and

the other Powell requirements for enforcement. 

The IRS, however, has adopted a policy of restraint in seeking tax

accrual workpapers. Announcement 2002-63, 2002-2 C.B. 72; I.R.M. 4.10.20. 

Consequently, there is little case law on this subject, and even after Arthur

Young, courts may entertain assertions of work-product and other privileges. 

See, e.g., United States v. Rockwell Int’l, 897 F.2d 1255 (3d Cir. 1990)

(reversing the enforcement of a summons seeking tax accrual workpapers

when the district court failed to also consider whether the documents were

protected by the attorney-client privilege).

3. Enforcement actions

If the summoned party fails to comply with the summons, Section 7604

provides the United States with a means to enforce the summons by filing an

enforcement proceeding in federal district court. (See, Section III.A.)

a. No conditional enforcement

There is no authority for a court to conditionally enforce a summons. 

United States v. Jose, 131 F.3d 1325 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc); United States

v. Barrett, 837 F.2d 1341, 1350-51 (5th Cir. 1988) (en banc) (per curiam).5

The power of the court in a summons enforcement case is “‘strictly limited to

granting or denying enforcement of the terms of the specific summons.’” 

United States v. Abrahams, 905 F.2d 1276, 1287 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting

United States v. First Nat’l State Bank, 540 F.2d 619, 624-25 (3d Cir. 1976)). 
18 May 2006

Nothing in the Internal Revenue Code authorizes a court to engraft

“equitable” requirements on its enforcement order so as to limit the IRS's

internal use of the summoned information. See Reisman v. Caplin, 375 U.S.

440 (1964) (injunction issued against IRS summons dismissed for want of

equity); United States v. First Family Mortgage Corp., 739 F.2d 1275, 1278

(7th Cir. 1984) (Tax Anti-Injunction Act barred taxpayer’s request for an

injunction against IRS’s use of summoned information). Although the

summons power is not absolute, restrictions on that authority should not be

imposed “‘absent unambiguous directions from Congress.’” United States v.

Arthur Young & Co. , 465 U.S. 805, 816 (1984) (quoting United States v.

Bisceglia, 420 U.S. 141, 150 (1975)). 

b. Withdrawal and reissuance

It is always the IRS’s prerogative to withdraw a summons it has issued;

and in most cases, if not all, it is free to reissue the summons. In the case

where a procedural defect is detected, consider whether withdrawal and

reissuance would be appropriate. Some courts have overlooked technical

defects in the issuance of a summons where the taxpayer or summoned party

has not suffered prejudice. United States v. Texas Heart Inst., 755 F.2d 469

(5th Cir. 1985), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Barrett, 837

F.2d 1341 (5th Cir.1988) (en banc) (per curiam); Sylvestre v. United States,

978 F.2d 25, 27-28 (1st Cir. 1992); United States v. Bank of Moulton, 614 F.2d

1063, 1066 (5th Cir. 1980). But not all courts do it lightly. In Cook v. United

States, 104 F.3d 886 (6th Cir. 1997), the IRS had provided the taxpayers with

just 22 days notice of the compliance date for a third-party summons, instead

of the 23 days mandated by Section 7609(a)(1). The Sixth Circuit affirmed

the denial of the taxpayers’ petition to quash, as taxpayers conceded that they

had suffered no actual prejudice from the violation, but cautioned that its

decision should not be taken as “a license to ignore statutory deadlines or to

negligently violate other legal requirements” and that the “court shall review

future violations of technical legal requirements by the I.R.S. and its agents

and attorneys with an increasingly critical eye.” 104 F.3d at 890-91.

When an IRS summons is withdrawn, a petition to quash that summons

becomes moot. Malone v. Humphrey, 237 F.2d 55 (6th Cir. 1956); Gillings v.

United States, 95 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1014 (9th Cir. 2005); Pintel v. United

States, 74 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5105 (C.D. Cal. 1994). Dame v. United States, 643

F. Supp. 533, 534 (S.D.N.Y. 1986); Kearns v. United States, 580 F. Supp. 8, 10

(S.D. Ohio 1983); Pac. Fisheries, Inc. v. United States, 94 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA)
 In Becker v. United States, 451 U.S. 1306 (1981), the taxpayers offered to post 6

a supersedeas bond and argued they were entitled under Rule 62(d) to a stay of an

IRS summons enforcement order pending appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Chief Justice

Rehnquist, acting as Circuit Justice, issued an order in which he granted a

temporary stay in order to allow the full Court to consider the issue of Rule 62(d)’s

availability. But the full Court did not take up the issue and the stay was lifted. 

See 452 U.S. 935.

19 May 2006

5953 (W.D. Wash. 2004); Dollar v. United States, 57 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 998

(W.D. Wash. 1985). 

c. Effect of taxpayer appeal

(1) Order is enforceable unless stayed

In the absence of a stay pending appeal, once a district court orders a

summons enforced, the summoned party must comply with the court’s order,

notwithstanding the taking of an appeal. On occasion, taxpayers have

contended that they were entitled to a stay of a summons enforcement order

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d), which provides that a stay may be obtained “by

giving a supersedeas bond.” But a stay under Rule 62(d) is “subject to the 6

exceptions contained in subdivision (a) of [the] rule.” Rule 62(a) provides an

automatic 10-day stay of execution upon a judgment or of proceedings for its

enforcement, but excepts from its scope “an interlocutory or final judgment in

an action for an injunction” and directs that the discretionary provisions of

subdivision (c) “govern the suspending, modifying, restoring, or granting of an

injunction during the pendency of an appeal.” The automatic stay provisions

of Rule 62(a) and (d) are thus most often, if not always, confined to cases

involving money judgments. See, e.g., Hebert v. Exxon Corp., 953 F.2d 936,

938 (5th Cir. 1992) (“Courts have restricted the application of Rule 62(d)’s

automatic stay to judgments for money because a bond may not adequately

compensate a non-appealing party for loss as a result of the stay of a nonmoney judgment.”). We know of no case holding that a summons enforcement

order was subject to an automatic stay.

A party, however, may seek a discretionary stay of an enforcement order

pending appeal, as it might any other order or judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

62 and Fed. R. App. P. 8. Ordinarily, the party seeking a stay must first

move for a stay in the district court. Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(1). A motion for a

stay may be made to the court of appeals, if the movant can show that moving
20 May 2006

first in the district court would be impracticable or can state that the district

court has denied the movant’s request for a stay. Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(2)(A).

The standards for determining whether a stay pending appeal should be

granted require that the moving party establish: (i) a “strong” showing that it

will prevail on the merits on appeal; (ii) that irreparable injury will result

unless the stay is granted; (iii) that issuance of a stay will result in no

substantial harm to other interested persons; and (iv) that issuance of a stay

will result in no substantial harm to the public interest. Hilton v. Braunskill,

481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987); Adams v. Walker, 488 F.2d 1064, 1065 (7th Cir.

1973). If the movant fails to establish that he satisfies all four requirements,

he will not be entitled to a stay.

Courts are not likely to grant a stay pending appeal of a summons

enforcement order.

A stay pending appeal from [an order enforcing] a summons should

not be granted as a matter of course, but only when there is a

substantial possibility of success, and then on terms designed to

expedite the appeal and, if necessary and appropriate, to protect

against the running of any applicable statute of limitations.

In re Turner, 309 F.2d 69, 72 (2d Cir. 1962) (cited in Multistate Tax Comm’n v.

United States Steel Corp., 659 F.2d 931, 932 (9th Cir. 1981)). 

(i) Likelihood of success on the merits – Given the IRS’s

broad investigative power and the highly deferential clear error standard of

review, see, e.g., United States v. Claes, 747 F.2d 491, 495-96 (8th Cir. 1984),

once the district court has determined that the Powell requirements have been

satisfied, the movant usually has little, if any, likelihood of overturning a

summons enforcement order on appeal. After all, Section 7602 gives the IRS

broad, although not unlimited, power to investigate. It extends the summons

power to the examination of “any books, papers, records, or other data which

may be relevant or material” to an inquiry. I.R.C. § 7602(a) (emphasis added). 

“The language ‘may be’ reflects Congress’ express intention to allow the IRS to

obtain items of even potential relevance to an ongoing investigation, without

reference to its admissibility.” Arthur Young, 465 U.S. at 814 (emphasis in

original). On that ground alone, a stay should usually be denied. But the

other requirements are equally formidable.
21 May 2006

(ii) Irreparable injury in the absence of a stay – Historically,

a movant might have argued he would be irreparably injured if a stay were

not granted, because compliance with the summons would moot his appeal

from the enforcement order. However, this argument has been taken away. 

In Church of Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9 (1992), the Supreme

Court held that compliance with IRS summonses did not moot an appeal from

an enforcement order issued by a district court because “if the summons were

improperly issued or enforced a court could order that the IRS’s copies of the

tapes be either returned or destroyed.” 506 U.S. at 15.

So, too, any alleged damage to the movant’s business or reputation caused

by compliance with a summons enforcement order does not constitute

irreparable harm as a matter of law. See Acierno v. New Castle County, 40

F.3d 645, 653 (3d Cir. 1994) (preliminary injunction case: “[e]conomic loss does

not constitute irreparable harm”); Morton v. Beyer, 822 F.2d 364, 371 (3d Cir.

1987) (preliminary injunction case: “we do not believe that loss of income alone

constitutes irreparable harm”).

(iii - iv) The balance of hardships and the public interest –

Because the Government is always a party to the summons enforcement

proceeding, the third and fourth criteria for granting a stay under Hilton v.

Braunskill, 481 U.S. at 776, namely, that issuance of a stay will result in no

substantial harm to other interested persons and will result in no substantial

harm to the public interest, merge into one. See Washington Metro. Area

Transit Comm’n v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559 F.2d 841, 843 (D.C. Cir. 1977)

(“[t]he interest of the Commission and of the riding public is largely the same

as that of the general public”). In that regard, the public’s interest in the

efficient and even-handed administration of the revenue laws is never served

by a stay. It has long been recognized that the Government needs “to assess

and collect taxes as expeditiously as possible with a minimum of

preenforcement judicial interference.” Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon, 416 U.S.

725, 736 (1974). The information provided by a summons plays an important

role in the process of enforcing the tax laws. When a summons is not complied

with promptly, the Government must take a detour from the orderly road of

its investigation. These delays hamper the progress of enforcement and

contravene the public interest. Cf. United States v. Kis, 658 F.2d 526, 540 (7th

Cir. 1981) (noting “Congress’s concern that summons enforcement proceedings

be concluded rapidly”). The public’s interest in vigorous and thorough

enforcement of the revenue laws should thus always weigh heavily against

granting a stay.
22 May 2006

(2) Compliance does not moot an appeal

“It has long been settled that a federal court has no authority ‘to give

opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles

or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it’. . . .

For that reason, if an event occurs while a case is pending on appeal that

makes it impossible for the court to grant ‘any effectual relief whatever’ to a

prevailing party, the appeal must be dismissed.” Church of Scientology, 506

U.S. at 12 (quoting Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653 (1895)). Relying on these

principles, the Government used to contend that compliance with a summons

mooted an appeal of the district court’s enforcement order. But that is no

longer true.

In Church of Scientology, the Government acquired possession of two

summoned tape recordings, after the District Court ordered enforcement of

the summons, but while the enforcement order was on appeal. Relying on the

authority of the majority (eight of nine) of the Circuit Courts of Appeal that

had considered the issue, the Government moved to dismiss the appeal on the

ground of mootness. The Ninth Circuit agreed and dismissed the appeal. The

Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the issue. Instead of relying on

the line of cases cited by the Government involving IRS summonses, the Court

chose instead to rely on numerous decisions holding that compliance with a

district court order enforcing a Federal Trade Commission subpoena did not

moot an appeal of the enforcement order. Consequently, the Supreme Court

held that compliance with an order enforcing an IRS summons did not moot an

appeal of the enforcement order, because “if the summons were improperly

issued or enforced a court could order that the IRS’s copies of the [summoned

material] be either returned or destroyed.” 506 U.S. at 15.

Although Church of Scientology was a loss for the Government, it is not

without benefit. If nothing else, it precludes a losing party from contending

that it should be entitled to a stay pending appeal on the ground that

compliance with the summons enforcement order would result in the

irreparable harm of mooting the appeal.

c. Remedies for failure to obey enforcement order

If a party ordered to comply with an IRS summons does not obey that

order, the Government may move by way of contempt proceedings to compel

compliance. See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 918 F.2d 82 (9th Cir. 1990);

United States v. Riewe, 676 F.2d 418, 421 (10th Cir. 1982). District courts
23 May 2006

have inherent power to enforce compliance with orders through contempt. 

Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370 (1966).

Contempt of court is defined in Blacks Law Dictionary as conduct that

defies the authority or dignity of a court. A motion for contempt in federal

court, whether civil or criminal, is premised on 18 U.S.C. § 401(3), which

provides that “[a] court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine

or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and

none other, as . . . [d]isobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process,

order, rule, decree, or command.”

In contrast to criminal contempt, civil contempt is designed to force the

contemnor to comply with an order of the court. Int’l Union, United Mine

Workers v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821 (1994). A district court may impose a

sanction for contempt only if it finds that the party requesting the sanction

has proven contempt by clear and convincing evidence. Peterson v. Highland

Music, Inc., 140 F.3d 1313, 1323 (9th Cir. 1998); Chicago Truck Drivers v.

Bhd. Labor Leasing, 207 F.3d 500, 505 (8th Cir. 2000).

For a party to be held in contempt, it must be shown that: (1) a valid

order existed, (2) the party had knowledge of the order, and (3) the party

disobeyed the order. Reliance Ins. Co. v. Mast Constr. Co., 159 F.3d 1311,

1315 (10th Cir. 1998). The moving party is required only to establish a prima

facie case of contempt by demonstrating that certain conduct was required by

a previous court order and that the alleged contemnor failed to comply with

that order. United States v. Hayes, 722 F.2d 723, 725 (11th Cir. 1984). A

prima facie case for contempt may be made either by affidavits attached to the

petition, or by sworn testimony presented in open court. The show cause order

places on the alleged contemnor the burden of showing why he should not be

held in contempt. United States v. Rylander, 460 U.S. 752, 757 (1983). The

defendant must present some evidence to explain or justify his failure to

produce the requested information. McPhaul v. United States, 364 U.S. 372,

379 (1960); Morrison v. California, 291 U.S. 82, 88-89 (1934).

The only question at the contempt stage is whether the contemnor has the

present ability to obey the court’s enforcement order. In raising this defense,

the defendant bears the burden of production. Rylander, 460 U.S. at 757. 

The defendant does not meet this burden simply by alleging nonpossession of

the summoned documents and asserting a Fifth Amendment privilege. 

Rylander, 460 U.S. at 758-62, United States v. Rue, 819 F.2d 1488 (8th Cir.

1987). 
24 May 2006

Any questions regarding the propriety of the summons and whether it

should have been enforced must have been raised in the enforcement hearing. 

Rylander, 460 U.S. at 757. “[The] contempt proceeding does not open to

reconsideration the legal or factual basis of the order alleged to have been

disobeyed and thus become a retrial of the original controversy.” Maggio v.

Zeitz, 333 U.S. 56, 69 (1948). 

In the contempt proceeding the summoned party must be able to show

that he or she had made all reasonable efforts to comply with the summons to

avoid contempt. See United States v. Seetapun, 750 F.2d 601, 605-06 (7th Cir.

1984); Hayes, 722 F.2d at 725-26. A defendant “demonstrates [an] inability to

comply [with a court order] only by showing that he has made ‘in good faith all

reasonable efforts to comply.’” United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701

(11th Cir. 1988) (citation omitted) (affirming contempt where contemnor’s

record searches did not amount to “all reasonable efforts”).

In United States v. Hayes, 722 F.2d 723, Hayes, a summoned tax

promoter, partially complied with an order enforcing the summons, but

claimed that some of the documents were being held in Switzerland by Hayes’s

business partner, who refused to release them. Despite Hayes’s alleged

“diligent requests” involving trips to Switzerland to obtain the documents, the

appellate court found that Hayes failed to make “all reasonable efforts” to

comply with the order: “[O]ther avenues for obtaining the material were never

explored.” Hayes failed to take any actions against his business partner,

including researching his legal rights, threatening his business partner with

legal action, or consulting an attorney. “He cannot carry his burden... merely

by adducing evidence that he has requested the documents, when it appears

that he has greater leverage at his disposal.” 722 F.2d at 725-26 (emphasis in

original). 

Because such contumacious conduct interferes with the administration of

justice, it is punishable by coercive sanctions to induce compliance, or by

remedial sanctions to compensate an aggrieved party for losses sustained for

past disobedience of the court’s order. Feltner v. Title Search Co., 283 F.3d

838, 841 (7th Cir. 2002). In fashioning sanctions for civil contempt, district

courts should consider “the character and magnitude of the harm threatened

by continued contumacy, and the probable effectiveness of any suggested

sanction in bringing about the result desired.” United States v. United Mine

Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 304 (1947). Appropriate sanctions may include a

coercive daily fine, a compensatory fine, or coercive incarceration. Int’l Union,

512 U.S. 821; United States v. Marquardo, 149 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 1998);
25 May 2006

O’Connor v. Midwest Pipe Fabrications, Inc., 972 F.2d 1204, 1211 (10th Cir.

1992). 

(1) Coercive Fines

When fixing the amount of coercive daily fines, district courts must also

consider “the amount of defendant’s financial resources and the consequent

seriousness of the burden to that particular defendant.” United Mine Workers,

330 U.S. at 304. One appellate court upheld fines of $5,000 a day for failure to

turn over documents pursuant to a summons enforcement order. United

States v. Darwin Constr. Co., 873 F.2d 750 (4th Cir. 1989). Coercive fines may

exceed the $1,000 criminal fine under Section 7210 for failure to comply with a

summons. United States v. Hefti, 879 F.2d 311, 315 (8th Cir. 1989).

(2) Coercive Imprisonment

The basis for permitting a court summarily to order coercive

imprisonment for recalcitrant persons without affording them the safeguards

of a criminal proceeding is that the contemnors hold “the keys of the prison in

their own pockets,” and therefore can purge themselves of the contempt at any

time. In re Nevitt, 117 F. 448, 461 (8th Cir. 1902). When a court finds that

confinement has lost its coercive effect, it essentially becomes punitive and the

contemnor must be released. See, e.g., Lambert v. Montana, 545 F.2d 87 (9th

Cir. 1976); In re Grand Jury Investigation (Braun), 600 F.2d 420, 423-24 (3d

Cir. 1979); Simkin v. United States, 715 F.2d 34, 36-37 (2d Cir. 1983). To hold

the contemnor longer would violate due process. Lambert, 545 F.2d at 89. 

Although the due process test is easily formulated (i.e., when

incarceration no longer has a coercive effect, it violates due process), the point

at which coercive imprisonment ceases to be coercive and essentially becomes

punitive is not readily discernible. While the courts have not formulated a

bright-line test to determine whether a contemnor has met his burden of

persuasion, it is well settled that a person’s insistence that he will never

comply is not sufficient. Lambert, 545 F.2d at 90 (citing Catena v. Seidl, 343

A.2d 744, 747 (N.J. 1975)). “Obviously, the civil contempt power would be

completely eviscerated were a defiant witness able to secure his release merely

by boldly asserting that he will never comply with the court’s order.” Braun,

600 F.2d at 425. What has emerged, therefore, is the requirement that the

contemnor bear the burden of establishing that there is no substantial

likelihood that continued confinement would accomplish its coercive purpose. 

Id. (citing Lambert, 545 F.2d at 90-91). Self-serving statements about present
26 May 2006

intention not to comply is not persuasive evidence that the defendants will not

change their minds. See Simkin, 715 F.2d at 37 (a contemnor’s present

intention not to comply does not preclude the possibility that continued

confinement will cause a change of mind). 

A court must make an individualized decision whether there remains a

realistic possibility that continued confinement might cause the contemnor to

comply. In re Crededio, 759 F.2d 589, 592 (7th Cir. 1985). In making its

decision, a court should be mindful that incarceration of contemnors for civil

contempt is premised on the notion that the desire for freedom, and

concomitantly the willingness to comply, increases with the time spent in

prison. Braun, 600 F.2d at 428; In re Martin-Trigona, 590 F. Supp. 87, 91 (D.

Conn. 1984). Courts have not hesitated to incarcerate civil contemnors for

periods greater than a year. See, e.g., United States v. Lippitt, 180 F.3d 873,

878 (7th Cir. 1999) (finding incarceration remains coercive after two years);

CFTC v. Armstrong, 284 F.3d 404, 408 (2d Cir. 2002) (upholding continued

civil contempt incarceration after period of more than two years); In re

Lawrence, 279 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2002) (over two years); Chadwick v.

Janecka, 312 F.3d 597 (3d Cir. 2002) (holding no constitutional ban to

incarcerating defendants seven years where defendant has present ability to

comply with order).

(3) Compensatory Fines

Compensatory fines compensate the party for injuries resulting from the

contemptuous behavior. Gen. Signal Corp. v. Donallco, Inc., 787 F.2d 1376,

1380 (9th Cir. 1986). The amount of compensatory sanctions includes the

actual costs incurred by the moving party. Id. Compensatory damages may

also include the amount of loss sustained by the contumacy. United States v.

Berg, 20 F.3d 304, 311 (7th Cir. 1994). See also Connolly v. J.T. Ventures, 851

F.2d 930, 932 (7th Cir. 1988) (holding that the loss due to contempt in a

copyright infringement action may include profits from the sale of the items). 

Actual costs incurred by the moving party include attorneys fees and costs

of attending the contempt hearing. A reasonable hourly rate to award for fees

is the amount “according to the prevailing market rates in the relevant

community.” Schwarz v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 73 F.3d 895, 906

(9th Cir. 1995) (citing Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984)); see also

United States v. City of Jackson, 359 F.3d 727, 733 (5th Cir. 2004) (“When a

court awards attorney’s fees to the government as a sanction for an adverse

party’s improper conduct, [ ] we treat the hourly rate in the local legal
27 May 2006

community as a benchmark for determining the amount of attorney’s fees to

be imposed.”); United States v. Big D Enters., Inc., 184 F.3d 924, 936 (8th Cir.

1999) (same); Napier v. Thirty or More Unidentified Fed. Agents, 855 F.2d

1080, 1093 (3d Cir. 1988) (same). The Government may argue that, at a

minimum, the Government should be awarded a rate equal to the rate

referenced in the Equal Access to Justice Act (28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A),

effective 1996). See City of Jackson, 359 F.3d at 734. The statutes allows for

adjustments for inflation. The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price

Index inflation calculator is listed at the following website:

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm. See Am. Wrecking Corp. v. Sec’y of Labor,

364 F.3d 321, 330 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

4. Petitions to quash third-party summons

Certain persons are entitled to bring a judicial proceeding to quash a

summons. A summoned party, whether or not the taxpayer under

investigation, is never entitled to commence an action to contest the validity of

an IRS summons. If he has a good faith reason to refuse compliance, his only

recourse is to wait and defend an enforcement action brought against him by

the Government. It is only the case of a summons issued to a third party that

offers an opportunity for a pre-enforcement challenge, but even then, not by

the summoned third party. If, under Section 7609(a), notice of a third-party

summons is required to be given to any person (including the taxpayer)

identified in the summons, the person receiving such notice (the “noticee”) is

entitled, under Section 7609(b)(2) to bring a proceeding to quash the

summons. But certain requirements must be met.

a. Requirements

 Section 7609 sets forth several requirements relating to time of filing,

requirement of notice, and location of the suit. The requirements are

jurisdictional: they comprise part of the conditions of the United States’

waiver of sovereign immunity and must be strictly adhered to by the

petitioner. Berman v. United States, 264 F.3d 16, 19 (1st Cir. 2001) (motion to

quash must be filed within 20 days of mailing notice); accord Faber v. United

States, 921 F.2d 1118 (10th Cir. 1990); Stringer v. United States, 776 F.2d 274

(11th Cir. 1985); Ponsford v. United States, 771 F.2d 1305, 1309 (9th Cir.

1985). As sovereign immunity cannot be waived unless the statutory

conditions have been met, counsel for the United States have no authority to

disregard or overlook failures to comply with the requirements of Section

7609. Moreover, although these requirements are jurisdictional and their
 One California court (in an unpublished ruling) held that the 20-day period 7

can be subject to equitable tolling. Mackenzie v. United States, 84 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA)

6725, 6726-27 (E.D. Cal. 1999). In so doing, it relied on Irwin v. Dep’t of Veterans

Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (1990). Subsequently, the Supreme Court considered whether

the statute of limitation for refunds suits could be equitably tolled in light of Irwin,

and held that equitable tolling did not apply. United States v. Brockamp, 519 U.S.

347 (1997). An analogous argument can be made with respect to the 20-day filing

requirement to quash a summons.

28 May 2006

absence may be raised at any time (even on appeal), they should be raised as

soon as possible.

The first requirement is found in Section 7609(b)(2)(A), which provides

that the petition to quash must be filed not later than the 20th day after the

noticee has been given notice. Ponsford, 771 F.2d 1305; Berman, 264 F.3d 16.7

If that 20th day falls on a weekend or legal holiday, the last day to file the

petition is the next business day. I.R.C. § 7503.

Second, Section 7609(b)(2)(B) requires the noticee who petitions to quash

the summons to send by registered or certified mail copies of the petition to

the summoned person and to the office designated by the Secretary of the

Treasury (which is generally, but not always, the issuing IRS agent). Section

7609(b)(2)(B)’s 20-day service period for petitions to quash reflects Congress’s

intent to expedite summons actions and eliminate frivolous delay so that the

actual investigation can proceed.

The requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i) for service upon the United States

and its agencies, corporations, officers, and employees also apply, which

means that copies should be sent by registered or certified mail or delivered to

the United States Attorney for the district, as well as sent by registered or

certified mail to the Attorney General in Washington, D.C. United States v.

Roebuck, 81 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 598, 601 (S.D. Iowa 1997) (“Rule 4’s service

requirements apply to petitioners proceeding under Section 7609.”). Accord

Faber v. United States, 69 F. Supp. 2d 965, 967 (W.D. Mich. 1999); Malone v.

United States, 77 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1157 (M.D. Ga. 1996); Hartman v. United

States, 76 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 7856 (M.D. Fla. 1995). If a petition to quash an

IRS summons is not served on the Attorney General and the United States

Attorney pursuant to Rule 4(i), it is subject to dismissal. Van Manen v. United

States, 838 F. Supp. 335, 337 (W.D. Mich. 1993) (citing former Rule 4(d)(4)),

aff’d on other grounds by unpublished opinion, 23 F.3d 409 (6th Cir. 1994).
29 May 2006

The United States must be served within the 20 days mandated for

mailing a copy of the petition to the IRS. Wahler v. IRS, 91 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA)

1731 (W.D.N.C. 2002) (service on United States must be effected within 20

days), aff’d by unpublished opinion, 62 Fed. Appx. 526 (4th Cir. 2003); Norfleet

v. United States, 89 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2879 (E.D.N.C.) (same), aff’d by

unpublished opinion, 48 Fed. Appx. 907 (4th Cir. 2002); Strong v. United

States, 57 F. Supp. 2d 908, 916 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (same); but see Tilley v. United

States, 94 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6942 (M.D.N.C. 2004) (in dictum, magistrate judge

indicates 120-day period of Rule 4(m) applies); Hicks v. United States, 91

A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 589 (M.D.N.C. 2003) (allowing service within 120 days);

Roebuck v. United States, 81 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 598 (S.D. Iowa 1997) (same);

Hovind v. United States, 78 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 7663 (dismissal for failure to

serve in 120 days), aff’d by unpublished opinion, 159 F.3d 1359 (1998); Tulsty

v. United States, 871 F. Supp. 299, 300 (E.D. Mich. 1994) (same). 

Third, pursuant to Section 7609(h), a petition to quash must be filed in

the district where the summoned party “resides or is found.” This provision is

a jurisdictional requirement rather than a matter of venue. Deal v. United

States, 759 F.2d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 1985). The statute does not define “resides

or is found” and the meaning of the term has been interpreted infrequently by

the courts. The Ninth Circuit held that the Nevada district court did not have

jurisdiction to hear a petition to quash a summons issued to a California bank. 

Fortney v. United States, 59 F.3d 117, 119 (9th Cir. 1995). The Fifth Circuit

stated that jurisdiction is “vested in the district where the summons is to be

answered” rather than “by the location of the taxpayer.” Masat v. United

States, 745 F.2d 985, 988 (5th Cir. 1984). See also Beck v. United States, 91

A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1345 (6th Cir. 2003). The district court in Oregon found that

the statute requires “something more than the Due Process analysis of

minimum contacts” and requires “a physical presence within the forum.” 

Oldham v. United States, 89 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2095, 2097 (D. Or. 2002). 

Similarly, a district court in California dismissed a petition to quash a

summons issued to MasterCard International because it did not have an office

in California. Scharringhausen v. United States, 91 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 651

(S.D. Cal. 2003). 

b. Counterclaim for enforcement

Section 7609(b)(2)(A) permits the Government to file a counterclaim for

enforcement whenever a petition to quash a summons has been filed. 

Whether to do so is a strategic decision to be made in consultation with the

IRS. The summoned party may comply with the summons after the petition to
30 May 2006

quash the summons is dismissed or denied, without a corresponding order

enforcing the summons. In such cases, a counterclaim for enforcement is

unnecessary. If, on the other hand, there is a possibility that compliance

would not follow, an enforcement order would be binding on the summoned

party, whether or not a named party in the case. I.R.C. § 7609(b)(2)(C) (“the

person summoned shall have the right to intervene. . . [and] shall be bound by

the decision in such proceeding (whether or not the person intervenes in such

proceeding)”).

C. RESPONSES TO FREQUENT OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS

In addition to claiming that the Government failed to establish the four

Powell requirements, a summoned party or noticee may attempt a broader

attack on a summons’s validity. In United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 58

(1964), the Court explained that in a summons enforcement proceeding:

It is the court’s process which is invoked to enforce the administrative

summons and a court may not permit its process to be abused. Such an

abuse would take place if the summons had been issued for an improper

purpose, such as to harass the taxpayer or to put pressure on him to settle

a collateral dispute, or for any other purpose reflecting on the good faith

of the particular investigation.

The taxpayer may “challenge the summons on any appropriate ground.”

United States v. Freedom Church, 613 F.2d 316, 319 (1st Cir. 1979) (citations

omitted & emphasis added). The court is faced with the task of balancing the

interests of the taxpayer and the Government. “On one hand is the

Government’s interest in summary proceedings designed to expedite tax

collection. On the other hand is the taxpayer’s right to protection from the

improper use of the Internal Revenue Service’s summons powers.” United

States v. Stuckey, 646 F.2d 1369, 1373 (9th Cir. 1981) (emphasis added).

In addition to broadside attacks challenging the propriety of the

summons, what follows are responses to typical arguments challenging the

validity of a summons.

1. IRS failed to follow administrative requirements

Taxpayers often argue that a court should not enforce a summons, or

should quash a summons to a third party, because the IRS failed to follow

appropriate procedures, including failure to properly issue, serve, or give
31 May 2006

notice of the summons. In effect, such taxpayers are arguing that the fourth

requirement of the Powell requirements has not been met. (See Section

II(B)(2)(a)(4).) 

Even if all the administrative steps required by the Code were not

 followed, a court may order enforcement of the summonses. Several courts

have held that not every failure to follow an administrative requirement

imposed by the Code necessitates denial of enforcement. See Mimick v. United

States, 952 F.2d 230, 231-32 (8th Cir. 1991). In the words of the Fifth Circuit: 

Nothing in the language of the code itself mandates this sanction [denial

of enforcement] for infringement [of the Code's administrative

requirements]. The correct approach for determining whether to enforce

a summons requires the court to evaluate the seriousness of the violation

under all the circumstances including the Government’s good faith and

the degree of harm imposed by the unlawful conduct.

United States v. Payne, 648 F.2d 361, 363 (5th Cir. 1981), (quoting United

States v. Bank of Moulton, 614 F.2d 1063, 1066 (5th Cir. 1980)).

a. Challenges to the issuance of the summons

One of the most common challenges to summons enforcement is to the

official’s authority to issue the summons. Section 7602(a) provides summons

authority to the “Secretary,” meaning “the Secretary of the Treasury or his

delegate.” I.R.C. § 7701(a)(11)(B). “Delegate,” in turn, is defined as “any

officer, employee, or agency of the Treasury Department duly authorized by

the Secretary of the Treasury directly, or indirectly by one or more

redelegations of authority, to perform the function mentioned or described in

the context.” I.R.C. § 7701(a)(12)(A)(i).

The Secretary of the Treasury has delegated authority to issue

summonses to the Commissioner of the IRS. Treas. Reg. § 301.7602-1(b)

(authorizing the Commissioner of the IRS to issue summonses under I.R.C.

§ 7602); Treas. Reg. §301.7701-9(b) (Treasury regulations authorizing the

Commissioner to perform some function “shall constitute a delegation by the

Secretary of the authority to perform such function”). The Secretary has

authorized the Commissioner to redelegate this authority to IRS employees. 

Treas. Reg. § 301.7701-9(c). The Commissioner has redelegated this

authority. Deleg. Order No. 4 (Rev. 22), 1997 WL 33479254 (delegating from
32 May 2006

Commissioner to various IRS employees, including revenue agents, authority

to issue summonses). 

The Supreme Court and the courts of appeal have recognized that the

Secretary’s authority to issue summonses has been delegated to the IRS and

its employees. See, e.g., United States v. Arthur Young & Co., 465 U.S. 805,

814 (1984) (“[ a]s a tool of discovery, the § 7602 summons is critical to the

investigative and enforcement functions of the IRS”); United States v. Ins.

Consultants of Knox, Inc., 187 F.3d 755, 759 (7th Cir. 1999) (“[t]he IRS is

authorized to issue summonses” pursuant to I.R.C. § 7602); Holifield v. United

States, 909 F.2d 201, 205 (7th Cir. 1990) (“The information-gathering

authority granted to the IRS under § 7602 is quite broad.”). Challenges to this

delegation have been dismissed as lacking merit. United States v. Derr, 968

F.2d 943, 947 (9th Cir. 1992) (rejecting argument that IRS agents did not have

delegated authority to issue summonses); United States v. Saunders, 951 F.2d

1065, 1067 (9th Cir. 1991) (same for summons issued by IRS Revenue Officer);

Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1445, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990) (failure

to publish Treasury Department orders delegating authority did not deprive

the IRS of authority to issue summons).

b. Challenges to service of the summons

Section 7603 provides that an IRS summons “shall be served . . . by an

attested copy delivered in hand to the person to whom it is directed or left at

his last and usual place of abode.” United States v. Bichara, 826 F.2d 1037

(11th Cir. 1987) (proper service of a summons to a taxpayer does not require

that the IRS leave the summons with some person of suitable age and

discretion). Service “in hand” of an officer of a corporate taxpayer, including a

managing agent, is sufficient to effect service on a foreign corporation. United

States v. Toyota Motor Co., 569 F. Supp. 1158 (C.D. Cal. 1983).

The same IRS agent or officer may both issue and serve a summons

pursuant to Sections 7602 and 7603. United States v. Crum, 288 F.3d 332, 334

(7th Cir. 2002); Derr, 968 F.2d at 946-47; United States v. McCoy, 954 F.2d

1000, 1001 (5th Cir. 1992); Bichara, 826 F.2d at 1038; United States v.

Howard, 360 F.2d 373, 375 (3d Cir. 1966). 

Objections to defects in service of a summons to a third-party

recordkeeper may only be raised by the summoned party; the taxpayer has no

standing to assert objections to a summons that are personal to the third-
33 May 2006

party recordkeeper. Wright v. United States, 964 F. Supp. 336 (M.D. Fla.),

aff’d without opinion, 132 F.3d 1461 (11th Cir. 1997).

c. Challenges to the adequacy of the notice of the summons

While the procedural requirements of Section 7603 for serving the person

named in the summons must be strictly observed, a failure to strictly comply

with the taxpayer notice requirements of I.R.C. § 7609 does not necessarily

warrant the quashing of third-party summonses. United States v. Hamilton

Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 566 F. Supp. 755, 758 (E.D.N.Y. 1983). The

sufficiency of the notice to the taxpayer must be judged by different standards

since its only purpose is to apprise the notice of an event that has already

occurred. Id., citing R. Fink, Tax Fraud—Audit Investigations, Prosecutions,

Vol. 1 § 7.05[2] at 7-53 (MB 1981). 

To evaluate the seriousness of the facial defects, the court looks to all of

the circumstances, including the Government’s good faith and the prejudicial

effect to the taxpayer. Bank of Moulton, 614 F.2d at 1066 (failure to list

addresses of third parties is not prejudicial); Tarplay v. United States, 86

A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5833 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); United States v. Hamilton Fed. Sav. &

Loan Ass’n, 566 F.Supp. at 758 (failure of the summons to properly list

address of taxpayer on summons not prejudicial); Int’l Bus. Enters. v. United

States, 75 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2237 (S.D. Cal. 1995) (third-party summons will

be enforced if agent makes good-faith effort to deliver a copy to taxpayer’s lastknown address, even though agent used the wrong address, if taxpayer

actually receives notice).

Courts have enforced summonses despite defects in the timing of the

notice to taxpayers. See Cook v. United States, 104 F.3d 886 (6th Cir. 1997)

(holding that district courts possess discretionary authority to excuse the

Service’s technical notice errors where the party in interest suffered no actual

prejudice); Sylvestre v. United States, 978 F.2d 25 (1st Cir. 1992) (affirming

district courts refusal to quash summonses in which taxpayer was served 21

days before the date fixed for examination of records, where taxpayer had

opportunity to intervene and seek to quash the summons); Rivera v. Chase

Manhattan Bank, 53 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1364 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) (absent harm to

petitioner, summonses, notices of which were given to petitioner 18 and 22

days before the date set for examination, would not be quashed); Holifield v.

United States, 677 F. Supp. 996, 998 (E.D. Wis. 1987) (although summons

required third party to produce records 11 days after service of summons, in

view of the fact that (a) the IRS later extended the date for production, (b) the
34 May 2006

plaintiff was able to move to quash, and (c) the records had not yet been

produced, the plaintiff had not been harmed and the summons would be

enforced).

Section 7603 requires that the IRS provide an attested copy of the

summons to the summoned party. The majority of courts have held that the

IRS need not provide an attested copy to noticees. Kondik v. United States, 81

F.3d 655, 657 (6th Cir. 1996) (“we hold that § 7609 requires only that

taxpayers be served with copies, not attested copies”); Fortney v. United

States, 59 F.3d 117, 120 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding that the absence of an express

attestation requirement in Section 7609 is dispositive of Congress’s intent);

Codner v. United States, 17 F.3d 1331, 1334 (10th Cir. 1994) (“Congress did

not intend to require that notice copies of summonses served on taxpayers be

attested.”); Darland v. United States, 921 F. Supp. 316 (D. Md. 1996). In the

Eighth Circuit, however, the court held in Mimick, 952 F.2d at 231-32 that

attested copies must be served on both the summoned party and any noticees.

d. Other Arguments

Taxpayers have from time to time unsuccessfully alleged other procedural

defects:

C In issuing summonses, the IRS is not required to comply with

procedural safeguards established by the Justice Department with

respect to issuing grand jury subpoenas to attorneys. Holifield, 909

F.2d at 205.

C There is no statute of limitations on enforcement of a summons. 

Being lulled and rudely awakened is not the kind of harm that allows

laches to be used to deprive a plaintiff of his rights. United States v.

Admin. Enters., Inc., 46 F.3d 670 (7th Cir. 1995). 

C The IRS is not required to complete a substitute for return prior to

the issuance of a summons. Tarplay v. United States, 86 A.F.T.R.2d

(RIA) 5833 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).

C No OMB control number is required for a summons. Alford v. United

States, 90 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 7034 (N.D. Tex. 2002). 
35 May 2006

2. The summons seeks information that the summoned party

has a legal duty not to reveal

A frequently encountered defense is that the summons calls for privileged

documents or testimony. Only those privileges recognized under federal law,

however, will be considered. United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 562 (1989).

a. Attorney-client privilege

 Summonses are “subject to the traditional privileges and limitations,”

including attorney-client privilege. Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383,

398 (1981). The attorney-client privilege encourages “full and frank

communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote[s]

broader public interests in the observance of law and administration of

justice.” Upjohn, 449 U.S. at 389. Protecting the privilege, however, comes at

a significant cost to the truth-seeking function of the adversarial system. 

Zolin, 491 U.S. at 561-63. “However, since the privilege has the effect of

withholding relevant information from the fact-finder, it applies only where

necessary to achieve its purpose.” Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 403

(1976).

A claim of attorney-client privilege will only be upheld: (1) where legal

advice of any kind is sought (2) from a professional legal adviser in his

capacity as such, (3) the communications relating to that purpose, (4) made in

confidence (5) by the client, (6) are at his instance permanently protected (7)

from disclosure by himself or by the legal adviser, (8) except the protection be

waived. See, e.g., United States v. Evans, 113 F.3d 1457, 1461 (7th Cir. 1997)

(quoting 8 John Henry Wigmore, Evidence in Trials at Common Law § 2292

(McNaughton rev. 1961)). The party asserting the privilege bears the burden

of establishing each of the necessary elements. Id. at 1461; United States v.

Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 58 (1964).

Blanket assertions of privilege are unacceptable: Colton v. United States,

306 F.2d 633, 639 (2d Cir. 1962); United States v. El Paso Co., 682 F.2d 530,

541 (5th Cir. 1982). Claims of privilege must be made and sustained on a 

question-by-question and document-by-document basis.

(1) Elements of the attorney-client privilege

(i) “Where legal advice of any kind is sought.” It is essential that

the advice in question be “legal.” Business advice is not covered by the
36 May 2006

privilege. See, e.g., Sedco Int’l, S.A. v. Cory, 683 F.2d 1201 (8th Cir. 1982);

Teltron, Inc. v. Alexander, 132 F.R.D. 394 (E.D. Pa. 1990); Coleman v. Am.

Broad. Cos., 106 F.R.D. 201, 205-06 (D.D.C. 1985). Nor is the preparation of a

tax return legal advice. See, e.g., United States v. Frederick, 182 F.3d 496 (7th

Cir. 1999).

(ii) “From a professional legal adviser in his capacity as such.” 

It is not enough that a communication be made by or to a lawyer. For the

privilege to apply, the lawyer must be performing services or giving advice in

his capacity as a lawyer. Evans, 113 F.3d at 1463. The following is a list of

some occasions when the privilege has been held not to apply:

C If one consults with an attorney, not as a lawyer, but as a friend or as

a business advisor, the consultation is not privileged. In re Lindsey,

158 F.3d 1263, 1270 (D.C. Cir. 1998); Sedco Int’l, 683 F.2d 1201;

Colton, 306 F.2d at 638.

C There is no privilege if the advisor is not an attorney, unless the

Section 7525 privilege, discussed below, applies. (See Section

II(C)(2)(b).) While there is no federal accountant’s privilege as such,

Couch v. United States, 409 U.S. 322, 335 (1973), there may be

circumstances in which the privilege will extend to an accountant

hired by an attorney to assist in his representation of the client. 

Compare United States v. Kovel, 296 F.2d 918 (2d Cir. 1961), with

Cavallaro v. United States, 284 F.3d 236 (1st Cir. 2002), and United

States v. Ackert, 169 F.3d 136 (2d Cir. 1999).

C When an attorney is acting as a mere scrivener the privilege does not

apply. See Canaday v. United States, 354 F.2d 849, 857 (8th Cir.

1966) (attorney prepares tax returns); Pollock v. United States, 202

F.2d 281, 286 (5th Cir. 1953) (“transaction involves a simple transfer

of title to real estate and there is no consultation for legal advice”).

C An attorney who acts as his client’s agent for receipt or disbursement

of money or property to or from third parties is not acting in a legal

capacity, and records of such transactions are not privileged. In re

Grand Jury Subpoena, 831 F.2d 225, 228 (11th Cir. 1987); Morgan v.

United States, 380 F.2d 686, 693 (9th Cir. 1967). See United States v.

Wells, 929 F. Supp. 423 (S.D. Ga. 1996) (enforcing summons to

attorney for trust account documents concerning real estate

transactions of client).
37 May 2006

C Bank records of receipts and disbursements in lawyers’ trust

accounts are not privileged communications. McClary v. Walsh, 202

F.R.D. 286 (N.D. Ala. 2000). 

(iii) “The communications relating to that purpose.” “The

privilege only protects disclosure of communications; it does not protect

disclosure of the underlying facts by those who communicated with the

attorney . . . .” Upjohn, 499 U.S. at 395-96. Thus, documents do not become

cloaked with the attorney-client privilege by being passed from client to

lawyer, Fisher, 425 U.S. at 403-04, and the information that a person

furnishes an attorney for the purpose of preparing his tax return is not

privileged. United States v. Lawless, 709 F.2d 485, 488 (7th Cir. 1983). 

Matters such as the client’s identity, engagement letter, retainer

agreement, or fees are generally not privileged. See, e.g., United States v.

BDO Seidman, 337 F.3d 802, 811 (7th Cir. 2003) (client identity); United

States v. Leventhal, 961 F.2d 936 (11th Cir. 1992) (fees); United States v.

Blackman, 72 F.3d 1418 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v. Abrahams, 905 F.2d

1276, 1283 (9th Cir. 1990) (names of tax preparer attorney’s clients and his

fees were not confidential communications protected by the attorney-client

privilege with respect to IRS summons); Lefcourt v. United States, 125 F.3d 79

(2d Cir. 1997); United States v. Ritchie, 15 F.3d 592 (6th Cir. 1994) (same);

Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394, 402 (4th Cir. 1999); Clarke v. Am.

Commerce Nat’l Bank, 974 F.2d 127, 129 (9th Cir. 1992); but see United States

v. Liebman 742 F.2d 807 (3d Cir. 1984) (holding IRS could not summons

names of clients lawyer had advised could take certain deductions). 

Billing records which reveal the substance of confidential discussions

between attorney and client, may be privileged. In re Walsh, 623 F.2d 489,

494-95 (7th Cir. 1980). The attorney-client privilege applies to correspondence

between attorney and client which reveals the client’s motivation for creation

of the relationship, as well as bills, ledgers, time records and other documents

which reveal the nature of the services provided. In re Grand Jury Witness,

695 F.2d 359, 362 (9th Cir. 1982).

To the general rule that a client’s identity and the nature of his fee

arrangement with his attorney are not privileged, some courts have recognized

a limited exception “where disclosure would . . . constitute the ‘last link’ in an

existing chain of evidence likely to lead to the client’s indictment.” Blackman,

72 F.3d at 1424; see also In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 517 F.2d 666 (5th Cir.
38 May 2006

1975). But the last link doctrine has not met with universal acceptance, see,

e.g., Ritchie, 15 F.3d at 602, n.13 (“our circuit has expressly rejected the last

link doctrine”), and, even in circuits that have adopted it, it will not

necessarily apply to prevent enforcement of an IRS summons, see Leventhal,

961 F.2d at 940-41.

(iv) “Made in confidence.” There must be an expectation of

confidentiality for the communication to be privileged. If the matter is not

intended to remain confidential but is, for example, to be disclosed on a tax

return, it is not privileged. See Colton, 306 F.2d at 637; In re Grand Jury

Proceedings, 727 F.2d 1352, 1356 (4th Cir. 1984) (collecting cases). Documents

transmitted to an attorney with the intent that the information will be

transmitted to a third party (e.g., documents needed for real estate closings

and business transactions) are not protected by the attorney-client privilege. 

Chevron Corp. v. Pennzoil Co., 974 F.2d 1156, 1162 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Weil

v. Inv./Indicators, Research & Mgmt., 647 F.2d 18, 24 (9th Cir. 1981);

Lawless, 709 F.2d at 487.

(v) “By the client.” In order to be privileged, communications

must be made by the client. Communications made by someone other than

the client, even if made for the benefit of the client and even if very helpful to

the attorney in rendering legal advice, are not privileged. Ackert, 169 F.3d at

138 (“[A] communication between an attorney and a third party does not

become shielded by the attorney-client privilege solely because the

communication proves important to the attorney's ability to represent the

client.”); In re G-I Holdings Inc., 218 F.R.D. 428, 436 (D.N.J. 2003) (same). 

When the client is not an individual but a legal entity, such as a corporation, a

court must determine which individual’s communications with corporate

counsel will be protected. This determination is made case by case, with an

eye to identifying those persons who (1) need to obtain legal advice to perform

their job and guide the corporate decision-making, and (2) are likely to have

factual knowledge which the lawyer needs to know to give the best legal

advice. Upjohn, 449 U.S. at 391-96.

(vi) “Are at his instance permanently protected.” See Swidler &

Berlin v. United States, 524 U.S. 399 (1998) (holding that the attorney-client

privilege survives the death of a client, unless some other exception to the

privilege applies).

(vii) “From disclosure by himself or by the legal adviser.” An

attorney need not produce documents that his client could not be compelled to
39 May 2006

produce. Fisher, 425 U.S. at 403-05. (“Since each taxpayer transferred

possession of the documents in question from himself to his attorney in order

to obtain legal assistance in the tax investigations in question, the papers, if

unobtainable by summons from the client, are unobtainable by summons

directed to the attorney by reason of the attorney-client privilege.”).

(viii) “Except the protection be waived.” In general, only the

client can waive the attorney-client privilege, as the privilege “belongs solely

to the client.” In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94, 100-01 (2d Cir. 1987). An

exception exists in some states which allows the personal representative of a

decedent to waive the privilege in certain circumstances. Swidler & Berlin,

524 U.S. at 404 n.2. In the case of a corporate client, officers and directors

control the privilege, which can be raised or waived. That authority, even

with respect to past communications, passes to a trustee in bankruptcy who

can choose to waive the privilege in light of his fiduciary duties to creditors

and shareholders. CFTC v. Weintraub, 471 U.S. 343, 358 (1985).

(2) Express Waiver

Generally, disclosure of confidential communications or attorney work

product to a third party constitutes a waiver of privilege as to those items. See

Genentech, Inc. v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 122 F.3d 1409, 1414

(Fed. Cir. 1997); Carter v. Gibbs, 909 F.2d 1450, 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en

banc); Clady v. County of Los Angeles, 770 F.2d 1421, 1433 (9th Cir. 1985);

United States v. MIT 129 F.3d 681 (1st Cir. 1997). Once the attorney-client

privilege has been waived, the privilege is generally lost for all purposes and

in all forums. Genentech, 122 F.3d at 1416. Voluntary disclosure of a

privileged document waives the attorney-client privilege with respect to all

communications on the same subject matter. Weil, 647 F.2d at 24; Golden

Valley Microwave Foods, Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co., 132 F.R.D. 204, 207-08

(N.D. Ind. 1990); Standard Chartered Bank, PLC v. Ayala Int’l Holding, Inc.,

111 F.R.D. 76, 85 (S.D.N.Y. 1986).

(3) Implied Waiver

A party may waive the attorney-client privilege by asserting claims or

defenses that put his or her attorney’s advice at issue in the litigation. RhonePoulenc Rorer, Inc. v. Home Indem. Co., 32 F.3d 851, 863 (3d Cir. 1994). See

Chevron, 974 F.2d 1156 (party’s claim that its tax position was reasonable

because it was based on advice of counsel puts advice at issue and waives

privilege). Common factors in finding implied waiver are (1) assertion of the
40 May 2006

privilege is a result of an affirmative act; (2) through the affirmative act, the

asserting party has placed the protected information at issue by making it

relevant; and (3) application of privilege would deny the opposing party access

to information vital to its defense. Hearn v. Rhay, 68 F.R.D. 574 (E.D. Wash.

1975).

The doctrine of waiver by implication reflects the position that the

attorney-client privilege may not be used as both a sword and a shield.

Chevron, 974 F.2d at 1162; In re Bilzerian, 926 F.2d 1285, 1292 (2d Cir. 1991);

In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d at 103. In other words, “[a] defendant may not use

the privilege to prejudice his opponent’s case or to disclose some selected

communications for self-serving purposes.” Bilzerian, 926 F.2d at 1292;

accord United States v. Jones, 696 F.2d 1069, 1072 (4th Cir. 1982) (“Selective

disclosure for tactical purposes waives the privilege.”).

Where a waiver has been found, the courts have taken at least three

different approaches in defining the scope of the waiver:

C The scope of the waiver only extends to the specific documents

produced: Prudential Ins. Co. v. Turner & Newall, PLC, 137 F.R.D.

178, 182 (D. Mass. 1991); Parkway Gallery Furniture, Inc. v.

Kittinger/Pa. House Group, Inc., 116 F.R.D. 46, 52 (M.D.N.C. 1987);

Int’l Digital Sys. Corp. v. Digital Equip. Corp., 120 F.R.D. 445, 446

(D. Mass. 1988).

C The scope of the waiver encompasses all privileged materials on the

same subject matter as the produced documents: Standard Chartered

Bank, 111 F.R.D. at 85; Perrignon v. Bergen Brunswig Corp., 77

F.R.D. 455, 461 (N.D. Cal. 1978); Goldman, Sachs & Co. v. Blondis,

412 F. Supp. 286, 289 (N.D. Ill. 1976).

C The scope of the waiver includes all privileged documents relating to

the same subject matter as the produced documents: In re Sealed

Case, 877 F.2d 976, 977 (D.C. Cir. 1989). 

(4) Selective Waiver

In Diversified Indus., Inc. v. Meredith, 572 F.2d 596 (8th Cir. 1977) (en

banc), the Eighth Circuit held that the corporate defendant had not waived the

attorney-client privilege when it disclosed to the SEC certain memoranda and

other documents prepared by special outside counsel who had been retained to
41 May 2006

investigate certain practices of the company’s personnel. The court of appeals

concluded that only a “limited” waiver had occurred, thereby giving rise to

what has come to be called the “selective” waiver doctrine. As its only reason

for its conclusion, the court stated that “[t]o hold otherwise may have the

effect of thwarting the developing procedure of corporations to employ

independent outside counsel to investigate and advise them in order to protect

stockholders, potential stockholders and customers.” Id. at 611.

The doctrine has not achieved much traction, as most courts have refused

to apply it. See, e.g., In re Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., 293 F.3d 289, 302

(6th Cir. 2002) (“we reject the concept of selective waiver, in any of its various

forms”); MIT, 129 F.3d 681 (disclosure normally negates the privilege);

Dellwood Farms, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., 128 F.3d 1122, 1126 (7th Cir. 1997)

(“The cases . . . generally reject a right of ‘selective’ waiver, where, having

voluntarily disclosed privileged information to one person, the party who made

the disclosure asserts the privilege against another person who wants the

information.”); Genentech, 122 F.3d 1409 (rejecting selective waiver doctrine to

allegedly inadvertent disclosure); In re Steinhardt Partners, LP, 9 F.3d 230 (2d

Cir. 1993) (refusing to apply selective waiver doctrine to voluntary disclosure

of work product to SEC); Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Republic of the

Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414 (3d Cir. 1991) (rejecting application of selective

waiver doctrine); In re Martin Marietta Corp., 856 F.2d 619 (4th Cir. 1988)

(same); Permian Corp. v. United States , 665 F.2d 1214, 1220 (D.C. Cir. 1981)

(finding selective waiver theory “wholly unpersuasive”); but see United States

v. Bergonzi, 403 F.3d 1048, 1050 (9th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (“Whether the

sort of selective waiver McKesson seeks is available in this Circuit is an open

question.”) (citing Bittaker v. Woodford, 331 F.3d 715, 720 n.5 (9th Cir. 2003)

(en banc) (“[T]he law [regarding selective waiver] is not . . . settled.”)).

The Tax Division’s view has been that selective waiver would extend the

privilege beyond its intended purpose of encouraging full disclosure to one's

attorney in order to obtain informed legal assistance. In MIT, 129 F.3d 681,

the Tax Division successfully contended that MIT had forfeited attorney-client

privilege and work-product protection for documents that had been disclosed

to the Defense Contract Audit Agency. MIT thus had to turn over the

documents in response to an IRS summons.
42 May 2006

(5) Inadvertent Waiver

A voluntary disclosure of information that is inconsistent with the

confidential nature of the attorney-client relationship waives the privilege. 

Alldread v. City of Grenada, 988 F.2d 1425, 1434 (5th Cir. 1993). There is no

consensus, however, as to the effect of inadvertent disclosure. Some courts

hold that where there has been a disclosure of privileged communications to

third parties, the privilege is lost, even if the disclosure is unintentional or

inadvertent. See In re Sealed Case, 877 F.2d at 980; In re Grand Jury

Proceedings, 727 F.2d at 1356.

The majority of courts, while recognizing that inadvertent disclosure may

result in a waiver of the privilege, have incorporated an approach which takes

into account the facts surrounding a particular disclosure. Alldread, 988 F.2d

at 1434. Courts generally apply the following factors in determining whether

inadvertent disclosure should be treated as a waiver of attorney-client

privilege:

the reasonableness of the precautions to prevent inadvertent disclosure,

the time taken to rectify the error, the scope of the discovery and the

extent of the disclosure. There is, of course, an overreaching issue of

fairness and the protection of an appropriate privilege which, of course,

must be judged against the care or negligence with which the privilege is

guarded. 

Lois Sportswear, USA, Inc. v. Levi Strauss & Co. 104 F.R.D. 103, 105

(S.D.N.Y. 1985); Dellwood Farms, 128 F.3d at 1127.

The ABA has issued an opinion stating that a lawyer who receives

materials that on their face appear to be subject to the attorney-client

privilege or otherwise confidential, under circumstances where it is clear that

they were not intended for the receiving lawyer, should refrain from

examining the materials, notify the sending lawyer and abide the instructions

of the lawyer who sent them. ABA Comm. on Ethics and Prof’l Responsibility,

Formal Op. 368 (1992). An attorney who receives such materials should

confer with his or her supervisor.
43 May 2006

(6) Crime Fraud Exception

The attorney-client privilege does not extend to communications “in

furtherance of intended or present continuing illegality.” In re Grand Jury

Proceedings, 87 F.3d 377, 381 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Jacobs, 117

F.3d 82, 87 (2d Cir. 1997). When a client abuses the system by consulting an

attorney for the purpose of furthering criminal or fraudulent activity, the

application of the attorney-client privilege is overcome by the “crime-fraud

exception” and such information loses its protected status. Zolin, 491 U.S. at

561-63. See also Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1 (1933). In such

circumstances, the value to society of encouraging attorney-client

communications is outweighed by “the costs of probative evidence foregone.”

In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Violette), 183 F.3d 71, 76 (1st Cir. 1991).

The party seeking application of the crime-fraud exception to overcome

the attorney-client privilege must make the following prima facie showing:

(1) that the client was engaged in (or was planning) criminal or 

fraudulent activity when the attorney-client communications took 

place; and (2) that the communications were intended by the client 

to facilitate or conceal the criminal or fraudulent activity.

Violette, 183 F.3d at 75 (emphasis in original). The exception applies not only

where the client actually knows that the contemplated activity is illegal, but

also where the client “reasonably should have known.” United States v. Rakes,

136 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1998). Moreover, whether the attorney knew about or

was complicit in the illegal activity has no bearing on the crime-fraud

determination. See United States v. Reeder, 170 F.3d 93, 106 (1st Cir.), cert.

denied, 528 U.S. 872 (1999); In re Grand Jury Investigation, 842 F.2d 1223,

1226 (11th Cir. 1987); Jacobs, 117 F.3d at 87. The moving party must also

establish “some relationship between the communications at issue and the

alleged offense.” Sound Video Unlimited, Inc. v. Video Shack, Inc., 661 F.

Supp. 1482, 1486 (N.D. Ill. 1987). Prima facie evidence is a “lax standard.” In

re Feldberg, 862 F.2d 622, 626 (7th Cir. 1988). 

To determine whether the crime-fraud exception applies, the court may

conduct an in camera review of the alleged communications. “[A] lesser

evidentiary showing is needed to trigger in camera review than is required to

ultimately overcome the privilege.” Zolin, 491 U.S. at 572.
44 May 2006

Once that showing is made, the decision whether to engage in in

camera review rests in the sound discretion of the district court. The

court should make that decision in light of the facts and

circumstances of the particular case, including, among other things,

the volume of materials the district court has been asked to review,

the relative importance to the case of the alleged privileged

information, and the likelihood that the evidence produced through

in camera review, together with other available evidence then before

the court, will establish that the crime-fraud exception does apply. 

Id.

Whether or not there has been an in camera review, the district court

exercises its discretion again to determine whether the facts are such that the

crime-fraud exception applies. Jacobs, 117 F.3d at 87. Mere allegations or

suspicion by the Government are insufficient. But proof beyond a reasonable

doubt is not necessary to justify application of the crime-fraud exception. The

test for invoking the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege is

whether there is “reasonable cause to believe that the attorney’s services were

utilized in furtherance of the ongoing unlawful scheme.” Reasonable cause is

more than suspicion but less than a preponderance of evidence. In re Grand

Jury Proceedings, 87 F.3d at 381 (9th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). 

The crime-fraud exception is not limited to traditional criminal activities;

the crime-fraud exception has been applied to civil fraud, as well as criminal

fraud. See United States v. Ballard, 779 F.2d 287 (5th Cir. 1986)

(communications relating to a fraudulent conveyance and scheme to conceal

assets from bankruptcy court are not protected by the attorney-client

privilege); United States v. Barrier Indus., Inc., 1997 WL 16668 (S.D.N.Y.

1997); In re Rigby, 199 B.R. 358 (E.D. Tex. 1995) (crime-fraud exception

applies to communications in furtherance of scheme to partition property to

avoid IRS lien; exception applies to work-product privilege as well).

b. Tax Practitioner privilege - § 7525

Prior to the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of

1998, Pub. L. No. 105-206, 112 Stat. 685, the attorney-client privilege was

limited to a communication between a client and her lawyer. And the

Supreme Court had ruled in Couch, 409 U.S. at 335, that “no confidential

accountant-client privilege exists under federal law, and no state-created
45 May 2006

privilege has been recognized in federal cases.” So things stood until 1998,

when Congress added Section 7525 to the Code.

With respect to communications made on or after July 22, 1998, Section

7525(a)(1) provides that “[w]ith respect to tax advice, the same common law

protections of confidentiality which apply to a communication between a

taxpayer and an attorney shall also apply to a communication between a

taxpayer and any federally authorized tax practitioner to the extent the

communication would be considered a privileged communication if it were

between a taxpayer and an attorney.” A “federally authorized tax

practitioner” is “any individual who is authorized under Federal law to

practice before the Internal Revenue Service if such practice is subject to

Federal regulation under section 330 of title 31, United States Code.” I.R.C.

§ 7525(a)(3)(A). “Tax advice” is defined as “advice given by an individual with

respect to a matter which is within the scope of the individual’s authority to

practice [before the IRS].” I.R.C. § 7525(a)(3)(B).

Section 7525 only “protects communications between a taxpayer and a

federally authorized tax practitioner ‘to the extent the communication would

be considered a privileged communication if it were between a taxpayer and

an attorney.’” Frederick, 182 F.3d at 502 (quoting I.R.C. § 7525(a)(1)). The

scope of the Section 7525 privilege is thus no broader than that of the

attorney-client privilege and is subject to all the limitations and restrictions

imposed on the attorney-client privilege at common law. For example, the

Conference Committee report notes that the Section 7525 privilege may be

waived by disclosure to third parties in the same way as is true of the

attorney-client privilege. H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 105-599, at 267 (1998), reprinted

in 1998-3 C.B. 755, 1023.

The Section 7525 privilege is subject to special statutory limitations that

otherwise make it significantly narrower than the attorney-client privilege. 

The privilege, such as it is, may only be asserted in any noncriminal tax

matter before the IRS and in any noncriminal tax proceeding in Federal court

brought by or against the United States. I.R.C. § 7525(a)(2). As a

consequence, it is not available in response to a summons issued by an IRS

special agent pursuing a criminal investigation. So, too, it is not available in

any non-tax matter or proceeding, whether or not the IRS or the United States

is a party. Thus, it “may not be asserted to prevent the disclosure of

information to any regulatory body other than the IRS.” S. Rep. No. 105-174,

at 71 (1998), reprinted in 1998-3 C.B. 537, 607.
46 May 2006

With respect to communications made before October 22, 2004, Section

7525(b) provides that the privilege “shall not apply to any written

communication which is between a federally authorized tax practitioner and

any director, officer, employee, agent, or representative of the person, or any

other person holding a capital or profits interest in the person, and in

connection with the promotion of the direct or indirect participation of the

person in any tax shelter.” (Emphasis added.) For these purposes, Section

7525(b) incorporates Section 6662(d)(2)(C)(ii)’s broad definition of the term

“tax shelter” as “(I) a partnership or other entity, (II) any investment plan or

arrangement, or (III) any other plan or arrangement, if a significant purpose

of such partnership, entity, plan, or arrangement is the avoidance or evasion

of Federal income tax.”

With respect to communications made on or after October 22, 2004,

Section 7525(b) was amended by the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Pub.

L. No. 108-357, § 813, 118 Stat.1418, 1581, to make the tax practitioner

privilege inapplicable to any written communication in connection with the

promotion of the direct or indirect participation of any person in such a tax

shelter, whether or not the participant is a corporation.

Among the cases to consider contentions that the Section 7525 privilege

applied are:

C BDO Seidman, 337 F.3d 802 (applying attorney-client privilege law

to reject claim that a client’s identity was a matter of privilege under

Section 7525);

C Scotty’s Contracting & Stone, Inc. v. United States, 326 F.3d 785 (6th

Cir. 2003) (rejecting suggestion that Arthur Young is no longer good

law in light of Section 7525);

C Doe v. KPMG, LLP, 325 F. Supp. 2d 746 (N.D. Tex. 2004) (rejecting

claim that client identities were privileged under Section 7525), rev’d

on other grounds, 398 F.3d 686 (5th Cir. 2005);

C Doe v. Wachovia Corp., 268 F. Supp. 2d 627 (W.D.N.C. 2003) (finding

Section 7525 inapplicable where the United States was not a party,

there was no IRS tax proceeding, and the tax shelter involved a

corporation);
47 May 2006

C United States v. KPMG, LLP, 237 F. Supp. 2d 35 (D.D.C. 2002)

(finding Section 7525 did not apply to communications relating to

preparation of tax returns).

c. Work product

In general, the work-product doctrine, now embodied in Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(3), provides qualified protection for documents:

prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another

party or by or for that other party’s representative (including the

other party’s attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or

agent) only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has

substantial need of the materials in the preparation of the party’s

case and that the party is unable without undue hardship to obtain

the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means. In

ordering discovery of such materials when the required showing has

been made, the court shall protect against disclosure of the mental

impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or

other representative of a party concerning the litigation.

The question whether a document was prepared in anticipation of

litigation is often a difficult factual matter. United States v. Rockwell Int’l,

897 F. 2d 1255 (3d Cir. 1990). In United States v. Adlman, 134 F. 3d 1194 (2d

Cir. 1998), the Court of Appeals held that a memorandum prepared by outside

accountants analyzing likely IRS challenges to a corporate reorganization was

protected work-product. The court accepted, without question, the taxpayer’s

assertion that litigation “was virtually certain to result” from the proposed

transaction if carried out, because the IRS usually audited the taxpayer’s

returns, the claimed refund was so large it would require approval from the

Joint Congressional Committee on Taxation under section 6405, and there

was no case or IRS ruling exactly on point which would validate the

transaction. Id. at 1196. The court held that “a document created because of

anticipated litigation, which tends to reveal mental impressions, conclusions,

opinions or theories concerning the litigation, does not lose work-product

protection merely because it is intended to assist in the making of a business

decision influenced by the likely outcome of the anticipated litigation. Id. at

1195. In the course of its opinion, the Second Circuit rejected what it viewed

as a narrower standard, described as “principal purpose” or “primarily to

assist in” litigation, as opposed to primarily to assist in making a business
48 May 2006

decision. See also, In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 357 F.3d 900, 908 (9th Cir.

2004). In any event, anticipation of an IRS audit does not amount to

anticipation of litigation and a factual record can be made to establish this

point.

In United States v. Baggot, 463 U.S. 476, 484 (1983), the Supreme Court

held that an IRS civil audit was not “preliminarily to or in connection with a

judicial proceeding” within the meaning of Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(C)(I). As a

result, grand jury transcripts and documents could not be disclosed for use in

the audit. Although the Court noted, 463 U.S. at 479 n.3, that its decision was

limited to Rule 6(e)(3)(C)(I) and that “[o]ther considerations may govern the

construction of similar standards in other contexts (e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(b)(3) (‘in anticipation of litigation or for trial’)),” its opinion is nonetheless

instructive.

The Court explained the “preliminarily to” requirement as follows:

[T]he Rule contemplates only uses related fairly directly to some

identifiable litigation, pending or anticipated. Thus, it is not enough

to show that some litigation may emerge from the matter in which

the material is to be used, or even that litigation is factually likely to

emerge. The focus is on the actual use to be made of the material. If

the primary purpose of disclosure is not to assist in preparation or

conduct of a judicial proceeding, disclosure under (C)(i) is not

permitted.

Baggot, 463 U.S. at 480 (emphasis in original). In other words, a civil tax

audit does not in and of itself portend litigation. The Baggot Court recognized

that there are four possible outcomes of a civil audit, three of which may

involve litigation at some point in the future. Id. Nevertheless, the Court

held that an audit was not “preliminarily to” litigation: 

The fact that judicial redress may be sought, without more, does not

mean that the Government’s action is “preliminar[y] to a judicial

proceeding.” Of course, it may often be loosely said that the

Government’s action is “preparing for litigation,” in the sense that

frequently it will be wise for an agency to anticipate the chance that

it may be called upon to defend its actions in court. That, however, is

not alone enough to bring an administrative action within (C)(i). 

Where an agency’s action does not require resort to litigation to
49 May 2006

accomplish the agency’s present goal, the action is not preliminary to

a judicial proceeding for purposes of (C)(i).

Id. at 481-82. See also, Culinary Foods, Inc. v. Raychem Corp., 150 F.R.D.

122, 130 (N.D. Ill. 1993) (documents prepared during OSHA investigation not

in anticipation of litigation because, in OSHA cases, litigation generally is

contemplated only after the employer refuses to recognize and correct safety

violations).

While the Supreme Court, with citation to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3), has

held that the work-product doctrine protects “material prepared by agents for

the attorney as well as those prepared by the attorney himself” (United States

v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238-39 (1975)), and applies to summons enforcement

proceedings, Upjohn, 449 U.S. at 398-99, the Court also has held that there is

no work-product immunity for the tax accrual work papers prepared by an

accountant on behalf of a corporation. See United States v. Arthur Young &

Co., 465 U.S. 805, 817 (1984). (See, Section II.B.2.c.(3).) Work-product

protection turns, in substantial part, on the role of the person preparing the

sought-after document. When an accountant is in the role of auditor of a

public company, his memoranda are not created “because of” litigation. An

outside auditor is performing a very different function than a business or tax

advisor. It is important in each case to set forth a factual record

demonstrating the work done and the role of the document creator. 

Privilege for work-product, other than the mental impressions of an

attorney, may be overcome with a showing of substantial need. In the

summons enforcement context, a factual record needs to be made to establish

the substantial need for non-opinion work-product. Attorney opinion workproduct, on the other hand, receives special protection by the courts; it is not

available even upon a showing of substantial need. See Pacamor Bearings,

Inc. v. Minebea Co., 918 F. Supp. 491 (D.N.H. 1996) (attorney opinion workproduct distinguished from “ordinary” work-product); Fraiser v. Southeastern

Pa. Transp. Auth., 161 F.R.D. 309 (E.D. Pa. 1995) (same).

Finally, it must be recalled that while I.R.C. § 7525 creates a tax

practitioner privilege analogous to the attorney-client communication

privilege, it does not create a work-product privilege apart from that created

by Rule 26(b)(3). Frederick, 182 F.3d at 502.
50 May 2006

3. Overly broad, vague, or burdensome

As an adjunct to arguments attacking the relevance of summoned

materials, parties resisting enforcement of IRS summonses frequently assert

that summonses are so broad, indefinite, or burdensome as to constitute an

unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. To pass

constitutional muster, however, all that is required is that the summons

describe the documents with sufficient particularity and not be excessive for

the purposes of the inquiry. See Oklahoma Press Pub’g Co. v. Walling, 327

U.S. 186, 209 (1946). “As for specificity, the summons [need only describe] the

requested documents in enough detail to inform [the summoned party] of

exactly what he was to produce.” United States v. Abrahams, 905 F.2d 1276,

1282 (9th Cir. 1990). See also United States v. Judicial Watch, Inc., 371 F.3d

824, 832 (D.C. Cir. 2004); United States v. Medlin, 986 F.2d 463, 467 (11th Cir.

1993) (“An IRS summons is overbroad if it ‘does not advise the summoned

party what is required of him with sufficient specificity to permit him to

respond adequately to the summons.’” (quoting United States v. Wyatt, 637

F.2d 293, 302 n.16 (5th Cir. 1981))).

While the Commissioner’s summons authority has been described as a

license to fish, United States v. Luther, 481 F.2d 429, 432-33 (9th Cir. 1973)

(“Sec. 7602 authorizes the Secretary or his delegate ‘to fish’”); United States v.

Giordano, 419 F.2d 564, 568 (8th Cir. 1969) (“Secretary or his delegate has

been specifically licensed to fish by § 7602”), this license is not without limit.

The IRS may not conduct an unfettered “fishing expedition” through a

person’s records, but “must identify with some precision the documents it

wishes to inspect.” United States v. Dauphin Deposit Trust Co., 385 F.2d 129,

131 (3d Cir. 1967). Thus, in testing for overbreadth, the question is not

whether the summons calls for the production of a large volume of records.

Instead, the questions are rather, first did the summons describe the

requested documents in enough detail to inform the summoned party of

exactly what is to be produced, Abrahams, 905 F.2d at 1282, 1285, and,

second, may the summoned records be relevant to the inquiry. In re Tax

Liabs. of John Does v. United States, 866 F.2d 1015, 1021 (8th Cir. 1989). 

Summonses that are definite in nature and finite in scope, and that request

only information that may be relevant to the IRS’s inquiry, consistently have

been enforced against challenges for overbreadth. See, e.g., United States v.

Reis, 765 F.2d 1094, 1096 n.2 (11th Cir. 1985); United States v. Linsteadt, 724

F.2d 480, 483 n.1 (5th Cir. 1984); United States v. Cmty. Fed. Sav. & Loan
51 May 2006

Ass’n, 661 F.2d 694 (8th Cir. 1981); United States v. Nat’l Bank of South

Dakota, 622 F.2d 365 (8th Cir. 1980).

Likewise, the courts have not been receptive to arguments that a

summons may be overly burdensome to the summoned party. It is now well

established that enforcement of a summons seeking relevant records will not

be denied merely because the summons seeks production of (or a search

through) a great many records or will result in significant expenditure of the

recordkeeper’s time and money. See, e.g., Judicial Watch, 371 F.3d at 832; 

Spell v. United States, 907 F.2d 36, 39 (4th Cir. 1990); United States v. Berney,

713 F.2d 568, 571-72 (10th Cir. 1983); Luther, 481 F.2d at 432-33; In re Tax

Liabs. of John Does, 866 F.2d at 1021 (court rejected employer’s claim that the

cost of compliance with summons seeking payroll records for 50 employees was

out of proportion to any revenue that the IRS might obtain); United States v.

Southwestern Bank & Trust Co., 693 F.2d 994, 996 (10th Cir. 1982) (reversing

district court's refusal to enforce fully a summons requiring review of 10

million documents).

4. First Amendment privilege

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the

Government from “abridging the freedom of speech.” The Government may

investigate speech, either spoken or written, only if it is outside the First

Amendment’s protection. 

Courts may quash IRS administrative summonses that would infringe on

First Amendment rights—either those of the speaker or those of the speaker’s

audience. United States v. Trader’s State Bank, 695 F.2d 1132 (9th Cir. 1983)

(per curiam) (vacating an order of enforcement of an IRS summons seeking all

church banking records as overbroad and an infringement on the church’s

First Amendment rights of freedom of association and freedom of religion);

United States v. Citizens State Bank, 612 F.2d 1091, 1094 (8th Cir. 1980)

(holding that the district court erred in failing to consider First Amendment

implications of IRS summons). The right to speak or write anonymously is an

inherent part of First Amendment freedoms, as are the rights to participate in

an organization, listen to a speaker, or read anonymously. See generally

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995). 

If the summoned party can make a “prima facie showing of arguable first

amendment infringement,” then, before a court will enforce the summons, the
52 May 2006

Government must demonstrate “a rational connection between the disclosure

required by the summons and a legitimate governmental end, and must

demonstrate a cogent and compelling governmental interest in the disclosure.”

Trader’s State Bank, 695 F.2d at 1133. The effect of this standard is that the

IRS summons should be narrowly drafted to avoid First Amendment

implications. 

It is not illegal merely to advocate a false tax theory. See generally

Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 358 (2003) (“the First Amendment ‘ordinarily’

denies a State ‘the power to prohibit dissemination of social, economic and

political doctrine which a vast majority of its citizens believes to be false and

fraught with evil consequence.’”) (quoting Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357,

374 (1927)); Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414 (1989) (“If there is a bedrock

principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself

offensive or disagreeable.”). 

Unless the speech falls into one of three unprotected or less-protected

categories, a court will not permit the Government to restrict or otherwise

interfere with speech. The three categories, which often overlap, are: (a) false

commercial speech, (b) speech that is part of a course of illegal conduct, and

(c) speech that incites others to imminently violate the law. Ohralik v. Ohio

State Bar Ass’n, 436 U.S. 447, 455-56 (1978); Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S.

444, 448-49 (1969).

(a) The First Amendment does not protect false commercial speech. 

Commercial speech is entitled to less protection under the First Amendment

than political speech, and so can more easily be regulated or enjoined. Virginia

State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S.

748, 771-72 (1976) (holding that commercial speech is protected by the First

Amendment, but that the Government may regulate false commercial speech). 

The Supreme Court has held that the Government “may ban commercial

expression that is fraudulent or deceptive without further justification.” 

Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U.S. 761, 768 (1993). Commercial speech, however, is

subject to injunction only if it is false or misleading; otherwise, it is protected

by the First Amendment. See, e.g., United States v. Estate Pres. Servs., 202

F.3d 1093, 1096 n.3, 1097, 1099, 1106 (9th Cir. 2000) (enjoining as “fraudulent

conduct” and misleading “commercial speech” the “marketing” and “selling” of

a “training manual” that provided “false tax advice”); United States v.

Raymond, 228 F.3d 804, 807, 815 (7th Cir. 2000) (enjoining as “false or
53 May 2006

misleading commercial speech” advertisements and a three-volume book);

United States v. Schiff, 379 F.3d 621 (9th Cir. 2004) (affirming ban on sale of

the book titled FEDERAL MAFIA, containing autobiographical information and

Schiff’s anti-tax theories, but also offering instructions on how to fraudulently

complete an IRS W-4 Form and providing a two-page attachment for

customers to submit to the IRS with their “zero-income” Forms 1040), petition

for cert. filed, 73 U.S.L.W. 3632 (U.S. Apr. 12, 2005) (No. 04-13); NCBA/NCE

v. United States, 843 F. Supp. 655, 665 (D. Colo. 1993) (“Perhaps the NCBA

Freedom Books, standing alone, would amount to mere advocacy. But the

NCBA went so far as to establish the NCE [a warehouse bank] and tout the

privacy it afforded to members. The NCE was clearly established to thwart

enforcement of the tax laws, and as such was an abusive tax shelter.”), aff’d by

unpublished opinion, 42 F.3d 1406 (10th Cir. 1994) .

(b) The First Amendment does not protect speech that is itself part of a

course of illegal conduct. Speech directed toward committing a crime—for

example, conspiracy or tax fraud—can itself be “conduct.” Banning a course of

conduct does not violate the First Amendment “‘merely because the conduct

was in part initiated, evidenced, or carried out by means of language, either

spoken, written, or printed.’” Ohralik, 436 U.S. at 456 (citation omitted). See

Vill. of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 496

(1982) (holding that “the government may regulate or ban entirely” “speech

proposing an illegal transaction”). The Supreme Court has emphasized that

the First Amendment “does not shield fraud,” Madigan v. Telemarketing

Assocs., Inc., 538 U.S 600, 612 (2003), and has pointed to “[n]umerous

examples . . . of communications that are regulated without offending the First

Amendment, such as the exchange of information about securities, corporate

proxy statements, the exchange of price and production information among

competitors, and employers’ threats of retaliation for the labor activities of

employees.” Ohralik, 436 U.S. at 456 (citations omitted); see also Pittsburgh

Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm’n on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376, 389 (1973)

(order prohibiting newspaper from publishing discriminatory advertisement);

Nat’l Soc’y of Prof’l Eng’rs v. United States, 435 U.S. 679, 696-699 (1978)

(injunction against publication of ethical canon); NLRB v. Retail Store

Employees Union, 447 U.S. 607, 616 (1980) (ban on secondary picketing). 

(c) The First Amendment does not protect speech that incites others to

imminently violate tax laws. The “incitement” line of cases began with

Brandenburg v. Ohio, in which the Supreme Court, examining whether the

First Amendment applied to statements to an angry mob, held that First
 In Richard A. Vaughn, DDS, P.C. v. Baldwin, 950 F.2d 331 (6th Cir. 1991), 8

the court concluded that the Fourth Amendment applied to the IRS’s retention of

records voluntarily turned over in response to a summons once that consent was

withdrawn. Once consent is withdrawn, the United States must obtain a court

order. See also, Linn v. Chivatero, 714 F.2d 1278, 1284 (5th Cir. 1983); Mason v.

54 May 2006

Amendment protection turned on whether the surrounding circumstances —

the context in which the statements were made — made it likely that the

statements would incite others to imminent lawlessness. 395 U.S. at 448-49. 

Since Brandenburg, courts have focused on the “imminence” part of this test. 

Injunctions prohibiting tax scheme advocacy have been upheld under

Brandenburg where customers were persuaded and followed the promoter’s

advice. See Raymond, 228 F.3d at 815; United States v. Kaun, 827 F.2d 1144,

1150-52 (7th Cir. 1987). Every circuit that has addressed the issue has

“concluded that the First Amendment is generally inapplicable to charges of

aiding and abetting violations of the tax laws.” Rice v. Paladin Enters., Inc.,

128 F.3d 233, 245 (4th Cir. 1997) (collecting cases). 

5. Fourth Amendment privilege

Powell does not require a showing of probable cause. United States v.

Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 51 (1964); United States v. White, 853 F.2d 107, 109 (2d

Cir. 1988) (“[W]e find the district court’s summons enforcement requirement

that the IRS must make a prima facie showing of ‘fraud, overreaching, or

excessiveness by the attorney or the Surrogate’ to be inconsistent with

Powell’s holding that only a showing of a legitimate purpose, and not a

showing of probable cause, is required for summons enforcement of its

summonses and we therefore reverse.”). A summons which complies with the

Powell requirements and is narrowly drawn satisfies the Fourth Amendment. 

Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 401 n.7 (1976). “A summons is not

overbroad for the purpose of the Fourth Amendment ban on ‘unreasonable

searches and seizures’ if the inquiry is ‘within the authority of the agency, the

demand is not too indefinite[,] and the information sought is reasonably

relevant.’” United States v. Judicial Watch, Inc., 371 F.3d 824, 833 (D.C. Cir.

2004) (citing United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 652-53 (1950) and

Oklahoma Press Publ’g Co. v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186, 209 (1946)). See also

Cypress Funds, Inc. v. United States, 234 F.3d 1267 (6th Cir. 2000); United

States v. Abrahams, 905 F.2d 1276, 1282 (9th Cir. 1990); United States v.

McAnlis, 721 F.2d 334, 337 (11th Cir. 1983); United States v. Roundtree, 420

F.2d 845, 849-50 (5th Cir. 1969).8
Pulliam, 557 F.2d 426 (5th Cir. 1977).

55 May 2006

A taxpayer’s Fourth Amendment rights are not implicated by a summons

to a third party. Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517 (1971); United

States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 440-44 (1976) (“Since no Fourth Amendment

interests of the depositor are implicated here, this case is governed by the

general rule that the issuance of a subpoena to a third party to obtain the

records of that party does not violate the rights of a defendant, even if a

criminal prosecution is contemplated at the time of the subpoena is issued.”). 

A summons which is alleged to have resulted from an unconstitutional

search or other Fourth Amendment violation, however, may be challenged on

Fourth Amendment grounds. United States v. Beacon Fed. Savings & Loan,

718 F.2d 49, 54 (2d Cir. 1983) (taxpayer alleged that enforcement of

summonses should be denied because they are part of an investigation that

was intensified as the result of an unconstitutional search and seizure by the

revenue agent). A taxpayer must make a substantial preliminary showing of a

Fourth Amendment violation before a court will entertain such allegations. 

Id. A summons may be used, however, to obtain documents previously

suppressed in a criminal case because of an improper search, so long as there

is an independent source for knowledge of documents. McGarry's, Inc. v. Rose,

344 F.2d 416, 418 (1st Cir. 1965) (permitting use of an administrative

summons to obtain documents previously seized in violation of the Fourth

Amendment because IRS agent had knowledge of the documents independent

of the unlawful seizure); United States v. Heubusch, 295 F. Supp. 2d 240

(W.D.N.Y. 2003), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 123 Fed. Appx. 21

(2d Cir. 2005) (citing with approval McGarry's, Inc. v. Rose; remanding for

consideration of Fifth Amendment claim).

6. Fifth Amendment privilege

A person summoned to answer questions from an IRS agent is entitled to

assert the Fifth Amendment right not to testify against oneself, where

appropriate. The assertion of the privilege, however, is subject to the same

limitations that obtain in other situations. “The witness is not exonerated

from answering merely because he declares that in so doing he would

incriminate himself – his say-so does not of itself establish the hazard of

incrimination. It is for the court to say whether his silence is justified.” 

Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951); accord Fisher v. United

States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976). “It is well established that the privilege
56 May 2006

protects against real dangers, not remote and speculative possibilities.”

Zicarelli v. New Jersey State Comm’n, 406 U.S. 472, 478 (1972); see also

Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 444-45 (1972) (holding that the Fifth

Amendment “protects against any disclosures which the witness reasonably

believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence

that might be so used”). 

As a corollary to this principle, “a mere blanket assertion of the privilege

will not suffice.” United States v. Hatchett, 862 F.2d 1249, 1251 (6th Cir.

1988). The privilege must be asserted with specificity. If the summoned party

appears at a compliance hearing, but is not given the opportunity to invoke

the privilege on a question-by-question basis because no relevant and specific

questions were asked, he will not have relinquished the privilege. It is thus

“incumbent upon the Government to ask specific questions” when a summoned

party does appear. United States v. Drollinger, 80 F.3d 389, 393 n.5 (9th Cir.

1996) (failure to appear at enforcement hearing and at contempt hearing and

to appeal either the enforcement or the contempt order did not waive the

privilege). If the agent excuses appearance based on a blanket assertion of the

Fifth Amendment, the IRS may be found to have waived compliance thereby

rendering the summons unenforceable. See United States v. Malnik, 489 F.2d

682 (5th Cir. 1974); United States v. Lipshy, 492 F. Supp. 35, 39 (N.D. Tex.

1979). 

Some courts will conduct their own in camera examination to determine

whether the privilege has been properly asserted question by question. United

States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 1991). Courts may

provide the summoned party an opportunity to assert the privilege even after

it has enforced the summons. United States v. Allee, 888 F.2d 208 (1st Cir.

1989). 

a. Act of Production

A person who invokes the Fifth Amendment as a basis to withhold

documents must “make a showing as to how disclosure of the summoned

documents might tend to incriminate him.” United States v. Fox, 721 F.2d 32,

40 (2d Cir. 1983). The act of producing evidence in certain circumstances may

violate an individual’s Fifth Amendment rights. Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410-13. 

This is so because the act of complying with the Government’s request may

have testimonial aspects and an incriminating effect. See United States v.

Doe, 465 U.S. 605, 612 (1984). By producing summoned documents, the

taxpayer may tacitly concede “the existence of the papers demanded and their
57 May 2006

possession or control by the taxpayer,” and he may authenticate the

documents by indicating his “belief that the papers are those described in the”

summons. Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410. See United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27,

41-43 (2000) (holding that because the grand jury subpoena was so broad, the

respondent had to “make extensive use of ‘the contents of his own mind’” in

order to identify the responsive documents, and the act of producing the

documents therefore had a testimonial aspect) (citation omitted).

Where the existence, possession and authenticity of the summoned

documents are established as “foregone conclusion[s],” the summoned party’s

act of producing the documents “adds little or nothing to the sum total of the

Government’s information,” and does not “rise[] to the level of testimony

within the protection of the Fifth Amendment.” Fisher, 425 U.S. at 411; Doe,

465 U.S. at 614 n.13. As explained in Fisher, 425 U.S. at 411 (quoting In re

Harris, 221 U.S. 274, 279 (1911)), “[u]nder these circumstances . . . ‘[t]he

question is not of testimony but of surrender.’” See United States v. Norwood,

420 F.3d 888, 895-896 (8th Cir. 2005) (existence of documents associated with

credit card accounts a “foregone conclusion”); see also United States v. Teeple,

286 F.3d 1047, 1049 (8th Cir. 2002); United States v. Stone, 976 F.2d 909, 911-

12 (4th Cir. 1992); United States v. Rue, 819 F.2d 1488, 1492 (8th Cir. 1987).

b. Collective entity doctrine

There is a critical distinction between collective entities and individuals,

when it comes to the Fifth Amendment. It is well established that an

individual cannot rely on his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory

self-incrimination to avoid producing the records of a collective entity which

are in his possession in a representative capacity. Braswell v. United States,

487 U.S. 99, 104 (1988); Bellis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85, 88 (1974); In re

Grand Jury Proceedings, 771 F.2d 143, 148 (6th Cir. 1985) (en banc). While

this rule was first announced with respect to corporate records, it also applies

to other collective entities including dissolved corporations, partnerships,

labor unions and other unincorporated associations. Bellis, 417 U.S. at 88-89. 

This rule also applies to former officers of a corporation. In re Grand Jury

Subpoena Dated Nov. 12, 1991, 957 F.2d 807, 812 (11th Cir. 1992) (“We hold

that a custodian of corporate records continues to hold them in a

representative capacity even after his employment is terminated. It is the

immutable character of the records as corporate which requires their

production and which dictates that they are held in a representative capacity. 

Thus, the production of such documents is required regardless of whether the
58 May 2006

custodian is still associated with the corporation or other collective entity.”). 

But see In re Three Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum Dated Jan. 29, 1999,

191 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 1999); In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated

June 13, 1983 & June 22, 1983, 722 F.2d 981 (2d Cir. 1983).

c. Required records exception

The “required records” exception to the Fifth Amendment applies to the

disclosure of documents which persons in a regulated industry are required by

the Government to maintain. See generally In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 601

F.2d 162, 168 (5th Cir. 1979). There are several reasons for this rule, notably

that “the public interest in obtaining such information outweighs the private

interest opposing disclosure and the further rationale that such records

become tantamount to public records.” Id. (internal citations omitted). 

Additionally, courts have held that production of such records is “in a sense

consented to as a condition of being able to carry on the regulated activity

involved.” Id. at 171.

The Supreme Court first recognized the required records exception in 

Shapiro v. United States, 335 U.S. 1 (1948), and formulated the standards for

the exception in Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1968): 

The premises of the doctrine, as it is described in Shapiro, are

evidently three: first, the purposes of the United States’ inquiry

must be essentially regulatory; second, information is to be

obtained by requiring the preservation of records of a kind which

the regulated party has customarily kept; and third, the records

themselves must have assumed “public aspects” which render

them at least analogous to public documents.

This formulation of the rule has become a three-part test that courts generally

apply to determine whether the required records exception applies. See

generally In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 21 F.3d 226, 228 (8th Cir. 1994). 

The required records exception is distinguishable from the “collective

entity doctrine,” which holds that collective entities such as corporations have

no Fifth Amendment protection. See generally In re Grand Jury Subpoena

Dated Nov. 12, 1991, 957 F.2d at 810. Although sole proprietors are not

subject to the collective entity doctrine and may otherwise have Fifth

Amendment rights, they are subject to the required records exception. See In
59 May 2006

re Grand Jury Subpoena, 21 F.3d at 230; see also In re Grand Jury Subpoena

Duces Tecum Served upon Underhill, 781 F.2d 64, 67-70 (6th Cir. 1986)

(applying required records exception to sole proprietorships); Bionic Auto

Parts & Sales, Inc. v. Fahner, 721 F.2d 1072, 1082 (7th Cir. 1983); Herman v.

Galvin, 40 F. Supp. 2d 27, 29 (D. Mass. 1999).

Courts have held that the required records exception applies to income

tax return preparers who are compelled by Section 6107(b) to retain and

disclose tax returns. See United States v. Nordbrock,65 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 660,

662 (D. Ariz. 1990), rev’d on other grounds 941 F.2d 947 (9th Cir. 1991);

United States v. Bohonnon, 628 F. Supp 1026, 1028-29 (D. Conn.), aff’d

without opinion, 795 F.2d 79 (2d Cir. 1985). But at least one circuit has

refused to apply the exception to records required by Section 6001. United

States v. Porter, 711 F.2d 1397, 1404-05 (7th Cir. 1983). 

7. Non-possession

When an IRS summons is served, the rights and obligations of the party

on whom the summons was served become fixed. United States v. Darwin

Constr. Co., 873 F.2d 750, 755 (4th Cir. 1989). Receipt of a summons imposes

a duty to retain possession of the documents pending a judicial determination

of the enforceability of the summons. United States v. Asay, 614 F.2d 655, 660

(9th Cir. 1980). 

If the respondent did not have possession or control of the documents at

the time the summons was served, he must raise this as a defense to

enforcement of the summons in the initial enforcement proceeding. United

States v. Rylander, 460 U.S. 752, 757 (1983). Lack of possession or control of

the requested records is a defense to the enforcement of a summons only if the

respondent properly establishes non-possession. Id. The Government is not

required to make any showing that the requested books and documents are

within the possession or control of the respondent. On the contrary, the

respondent bears the burden of producing credible evidence of non-possession. 

See United States v. Lawn Builders of New England, Inc., 856 F.2d 388, 392

(1st Cir. 1988) (stating that the court “rejected the contention that the IRS

must prove by positive evidence the existence of the records and their

possession by the summonee”) (emphasis in original) (citing United States v.

Freedom Church, 613 F.2d 316, 322 (1st Cir. 1979); United States v. Huckaby,

776 F.2d 564, 567 (5th Cir. 1985) (a defendant must prove a lack of possession

by the introduction of “credible evidence”); United States v. Graber, 81
60 May 2006

A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 429 (8th Cir. 1998). Thus, if the respondent wishes to raise a

defense of non-possession, he must present credible evidence that he does not

have possession or control of the requested documents. 

Not possessing the records is not a defense to enforcement of the

summons if the respondent caused the records to not be in his possession after

receiving the summons. Asay, 614 F.2d at 660. “Not surprisingly, the law does

not allow a custodian of records to send them away after receiving a summons

and then claim he cannot produce them because they are no longer in his

possession.” United States v. Three Crows Corp., 324 F. Supp. 2d 203, 206 (D.

Me. 2004).

The Fifth Amendment may not be invoked as a substitute for evidence

proving that the records are not in the respondent’s possession. The Fifth

Amendment privilege “has never been thought to be in itself a substitute for

evidence that would assist in meeting a burden of production.” Rylander, 460

U.S. at 758. The Supreme Court analogized to a criminal defendant’s right

against self-incrimination: “That the defendant faces such a dilemma

demanding a choice between complete silence and presenting a defense has

never been thought an invasion of the privilege against compelled selfincrimination.” Id. at 759 (emphasis omitted). If the Fifth Amendment were

permitted to replace the burden to produce evidence, it “would convert the

privilege from the shield against compulsory self-incrimination which it was

intended to be into a sword whereby a claimant asserting the privilege would

be freed from adducing proof in support of a burden which would otherwise

have been his.” Id. at 758. Just as a defendant in a criminal trial is required

to produce evidence of any defense he wishes to raise, so too must the

respondent produce credible evidence of non-possession if he wishes to raise it

as a defense to enforcement.

Often the taxpayer first asserts non-possession in a contempt proceeding

following the taxpayer’s failure to comply with an enforcement order. 

However, once a court orders enforcement of the summons, a presumption

arises that the documents are in existence and in the continuing possession

and control of the respondent. United States v. Sorrells, 877 F.2d 346, 348

(5th Cir. 1989). See also United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir.

1988) (court’s enforcement order is res judicata on the issue of possession at

the time when the order was entered). Because parties may not relitigate the

merits of the original court order at a contempt proceeding, taxpayers may not

avoid contempt by arguing that the documents were not in their possession
61 May 2006

prior to enforcement. Rylander, 460 U.S. at 757; Lawn Builders of New

England, Inc., 856 F.2d at 395. However, the respondent may raise a present

inability to comply as a defense to entry of an order of contempt. “While the

court is bound by the enforcement order, it will not be blind to evidence that

compliance is now factually impossible.” Rylander, 460 U.S. at 757. A

taxpayer claiming present inability to comply with the summons has the

burden of production with respect to that impossibility. Id. See also United

States v. Drollinger, 80 F.3d 389, 393 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Sorrells,

877 F.2d at 349. Self-serving denials by the respondent are not sufficient to

meet this burden. Roberts, 858 F.2d at 701. The respondent must show that

he undertook “in good faith all reasonable efforts to comply.” United States v.

Rizzo, 539 F.2d 458, 465 (5th Cir. 1976). 

 

8. Improper purpose or institutional bad faith

Taxpayers may argue that the IRS summons was issued for an improper

purpose by alleging that the IRS acted in bad faith in issuing the summons, 

issued the summons to harass the taxpayer, or that the IRS is pressuring the

taxpayer to settle a collateral dispute. 

 A court must look at the “institutional posture” of the IRS and determine

whether the summons was issued with the intent to harass the taxpayer.

United States v. LaSalle Nat’l Bank, 437 U.S. 298, 316 (1978). In United

States v. Millman, 822 F.2d 305 (2d Cir. 1987), the Second Circuit further

explained the “institutional posture” test: 

[T]he “institutional posture” test is the appropriate standard for

determining whether a summons is issued merely to harass the taxpayer,

that the motive of an agent involved in an investigation is a relevant

factor in determining that institutional posture, as are the particular

facts of each investigation and each taxpayer’s situation, and that while

the institutional test is applicable to a claim such a Millman’s, how that

posture, and the good faith of the IRS, are determined is a matter for

case-by-case adjudication. 

Id. at 309. While the personal intent of the agent is relevant, it is not

dispositive. LaSalle Nat’l Bank, 437 U.S. at 316. The taxpayer must disprove

the actual existence of a valid purpose by the IRS in issuing the summons.

“After all, the purpose of the good-faith inquiry is to determine whether the

agency is honestly pursuing the goals of § 7602 by issuing the summons.” Id.
62 May 2006

The taxpayer cannot meet this burden if he or she makes mere conclusory

allegations without specific facts showing an improper purpose. LaSalle, 437

U.S. at 316. In responding to the Government’s showing, the taxpayer must

factually oppose the Government’s allegations by affidavit. Legal conclusions

or mere memoranda of law will not suffice. United States v. Garden State Nat’l

Bank, 607 F.2d 61, 71 (3d Cir. 1979) (conclusory allegations are insufficient). 

If the taxpayer meets his burden, he may be provided an opportunity to

substantiate his or her claims in a limited evidentiary hearing. (See Section

III.C.)

Although the following list of cases is not exclusive, it illustrates various

arguments that a taxpayer might make regarding the impropriety of the

Government in attempting to enforce the summons: 

C Summons issued to harass taxpayers: United States v. Cmty. Fed.

Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 661 F.2d 694 (8th Cir. 1981); United States v.

Cecil E. Lucas Gen. Contractor, Inc., 406 F. Supp. 1267 (D.S.C. 1975).

C Improper ex parte communications between the IRS Appeals Office

and the Examination Division: Robert v. United States, 364 F.3d 988

(8th Cir. 2004) (even though the court found that the ex parte

communications were improper, the summonses were enforced

because the improper communications did not evidence bad faith or

an improper purpose in issuing the summonses). 

C The summonses allegedly were issued to retaliate against the

taxpayers for exercising their rights to free association, free speech,

and substantive and procedural due process. United States v. Kis, 658

F.2d 526, 539 (7th Cir. 1981).

C The IRS might improperly disclose the summoned documents: 

United States v. Barrett, 837 F.2d 1341 (5th Cir. 1988) (holding that

the district court may not conditionally enforce a summons to prevent

violations of I.R.C. § 6103); United States v. Jose, 131 F.3d 1325, 1328

(9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (reversing the district court’s order

requiring the IRS to notify the taxpayer before distributing the

summoned documents to other divisions of the IRS, including CI).
63 May 2006

C IRS committed fraud in gathering information used to issue the

summons: United States v. Deak-Perera & Co., 566 F. Supp. 1398,

1402 (D.D.C. 1983).

C Summons used to skirt discovery rules: PAA Mgmt., Ltd. v. United

States, 962 F.2d 212 (2d Cir. 1992); United States v. Admin. Co., 74

A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5252 (N.D. Ill. 1994) (holding that where

summonses were issued before Tax Court petition is filed, there is no

abuse of Tax Court’s discovery rules).

C Information used to prepare summons came from illegal wiretap: 

United States v. Millstone Enters., Inc., 864 F.2d 21 (3d Cir. 1988)

(holding that district court erred in considering whether summons

was based on illegal wiretap at contempt hearing). 

9. Criminal referral

Taxpayers occasionally complain that a civil summons was issued in bad

faith because the IRS was attempting to collect information by which it can

bring criminal charges. The possibility that criminal charges could be

considered at some time in the future does not make the summons invalid. 

Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517, 544 (1971). Indeed, a summons

may be issued in furtherance of a criminal investigation. Prior to 1982, the

IRS summons power could be exercised only if there was a civil purpose to the

examination, but the enactment of I.R.C. § 7602(b) changed that. Now, a

summons may be issued solely in furtherance of a criminal investigation,

provided that the matter has not yet been referred to the Department of

Justice for review and prosecution. (See Section II(B)(2)(b).) 

10. Intervening events

In general, the validity of a summons is tested as of the date of issuance

and events occurring after the date of issuance, but before enforcement, should

not affect enforceability. See Garpeg, Ltd. v. United States, 583 F. Supp. 799

(S.D.N.Y. 1984) (subsequent referral to the Department of Justice for criminal

prosecution); PAA Mgmt., Ltd. v. United States, 962 F.2d 212, 219 (2d Cir.

1992) (filing of Tax Court petition after issuance of summons); United States v.

Admin. Enters., Inc., 46 F.3d 670 (7th Cir. 1995) (passage of time since

issuance of summons). 
64 May 2006

There are two notable exceptions to the general rule: First, compliance

with the summons before enforcement is ordered will, in most cases, obviate

the need for an enforcement order. However, compliance by the summoned

person after an enforcement order is issued will not moot an appeal of an

enforcement order or of the denial of a petition to quash the summons. 

Church of Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 17-18 & n. 11 (1992). 

Second, an enforcement action cannot be commenced after a “Department

of Justice referral” (as defined in Internal Revenue Code section 7602(d)) has

been made. This prohibition applies as well to seeking enforcement in

response to a petition to quash, as is permitted by Section 7609(b)(2)(A). 

DeGroote v. United States, 57 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1373 (W.D.N.Y. 1986).

D. SPECIALTY SUMMONSES

1. John Doe summonses

John Doe summonses are issued to discover the identities of unknown

taxpayers. All proceedings involving such summonses are handled by the Tax

Division. The Tax Division’s current policy is that a Deputy Assistant

Attorney General for the Tax Division should approve the filing of a petition

seeking authorization to serve a John Doe summons. (See Section III.E.)

In United States v. Bisceglia, 420 U.S. 141 (1975), the Supreme Court

held that Sections 7601 and 7602 of the Internal Revenue Code empowered

the IRS to issue John Doe summonses to discover the identity of unknown

taxpayers. Congress subsequently codified this authority in Section 7609(f),

which requires that, before the IRS may serve a John Doe summons, it must

obtain authorization from a federal district court judge in an ex parte court

proceeding.

At the ex parte court proceeding, the Government must establish (1) that

the summons relates to the investigation of a particular person or

ascertainable group or class of persons; (2) that there is a reasonable basis for

believing that such person or group or class of persons may fail or may have

failed to comply with any provision of any internal revenue law; and (3) that

the information sought to be obtained from the examination of the records or

testimony (and the identity of the person or persons with respect to whose

liability the summons is issued) is not readily available from other sources. 
65 May 2006

I.R.C. § 7609(f). See In re Does, 671 F.2d 977 (6th Cir. 1982); see also United

States v. Pittsburgh Trade Exch., Inc., 644 F.2d 302, 306 (3d Cir. 1981); United

States v. Brigham Young Univ., 679 F.2d 1345, 1349-50 (10th Cir. 1982) rev’d

on other ground, 459 U.S. 1095 (1983); United States v. Kersting, 891 F.2d

1407, 1409 (9th Cir. 1989).

If the summoned party refuses to comply with a John Doe summons, the

Government can pursue enforcement by filing a petition with the federal

district court in which the summoned party resides or is found. The

traditional Powell factors also apply to enforcement of a John Doe summons. 

Pursuant to Section 7609(e)(2), the running of the statute of limitations with

respect to the John Doe is suspended, if compliance with the John Doe

summons is not resolved within six months after service of the summons.

2. Summons for records from a church (I.R.C. § 7611)

Special rules apply when issuing and seeking enforcement of a summons

issued as part of an examination of a church. All proceedings involving the

enforcement of such summonses are to be handled by the Tax Division. As a

matter of practice, a Deputy Assistant Attorney General and the appropriate

Section Chief should be notified whenever a suit to enforce a summons in

connection with an examination of a church has been received by the Tax

Division.

Section 7611 imposes procedural and substantive requirements on the

IRS’s ability to examine the tax exempt status of a church and whether any of

its activities may be subject to tax. The term “church” includes any

organization claiming to be a church and any convention or association of

churches. I.R.C. § 7611(h)(1); Treas. Reg. § 301.7611-1, Q&A3.

The statute requires that before the IRS may even inquire, a “high-level

Treasury official” must reasonably believe, based on facts and circumstances

recorded in writing, that the church may not be exempt or that it is carrying

on an unrelated trade or business that is subject to tax or may have engaged

in activities that are subject to tax. It is important to make sure that the

person making this determination has been properly delegated this

responsibility. Once the high-level official forms the required belief, a church

is entitled to written notice of and the basis for the belief.
66 May 2006

In order to begin a church tax examination, in addition to the notice of

inquiry, a notice of examination must be sent to the church, with a copy to

Division Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel, Tax Exempt and Government

Entities, describing the records and activities which the IRS seeks to examine. 

The notice must describe the IRS’s concerns and include copies of all relevant

documents which would be disclosable if a FOIA request had been made. In

addition, the notice must provide an opportunity for a conference with the

IRS. Any examination must be completed within two years from the date of

the notice of examination. This period will be suspended under certain

circumstances, including any period during which a summons enforcement

proceeding is pending.

Church records may be examined only, “to the extent necessary” to

determine liability for and amount of tax. Religious activities may be

examined only “to the extent necessary” to determine whether an organization

claiming to be a church is a church for any period. Accordingly, in addition to

the Powell requirements, the Government’s papers must demonstrate

“necessity,” which requires a particularized showing of need for each category

of records summoned. United States v. C.E. Hobbs Found. for Religious

Training & Educ., Inc., 7 F.3d 169 (9th Cir. 1993); United States v. Church of

Scientology Western U.S., 973 F.2d 715 (9th Cir. 1992); United States v.

Church of Scientology of Boston, Inc., 933 F.2d 1074 (1st Cir. 1991).

3. Summons for computer software (I.R.C. § 7612)

Computer software, particularly the underlying source code, may be

valuable intellectual property that often contains copyrighted material or

trade secrets. See United States v. Norwest Corp. 116 F.3d 1227 (8th Cir.

1997); United States v. Caltex Petroleum Corp., 12 F. Supp. 2d 545 (N.D. Tex.

1998). Congress has specified the circumstances under which the IRS may

summon and use software and source code. I.R.C. § 7612. Section 7612 has

two important parts: (1) protection for the confidentiality of all executable

software; and (2) special rules for summoning the source code of tax related

software. 

“Computer software executable code” is “any object code, machine code, or

other code readable by a computer when loaded into its memory and used

directly by such computer to execute instructions.” I.R.C. § 7612(d)(3)(A).

Section 7612 protects the confidentiality of executable software by (1) giving

courts jurisdiction to enter protective orders for software; and (2) imposing
67 May 2006

conditions on the use of software that comes into possession of the IRS,

notwithstanding the terms of any protective order. The conditions include

limiting access to the software to specific IRS personnel identified to the

taxpayer, limiting use of the software to the audit at hand, returning the

software at the end of the audit, and agreeing not to disclose information

learned about the software. Additionally, § 7612(c)(2)(H) makes it clear that

software shall be treated as return information for purposes of I.R.C. § 6103.

Section 7612 also details the circumstances under which the IRS can

summon computer software source code. Source code is defined as a “code

written by a programmer using a programming language which is

comprehensible to appropriately trained persons and is not capable of directly

being used to give instructions to a computer.” I.R.C. § 7612(d)(2)(a). For

purposes of § 7612, source code also includes programmer notes, design

documents, memoranda, and similar documents, as well as related customer

communications. I.R.C. §§ 7612 (d)(2)(B) & (C). 

Before the IRS may issue a summons for source code, it must show that it

is not able to ascertain the correctness of an item on the return by using the

taxpayer’s books, papers, records, or other data, or by using the executable

version of the program (the version the taxpayer used). In this narrow

circumstance, Congress has decided that the IRS is required to prove need

before it can get the source code. Further, the IRS must identify, with

specificity, the portion of the source code that is necessary to verify the

correctness of an item on the return. Additionally, the Secretary or his

delegate must make a determination that the need for the source code

outweighs the risks of unauthorized disclosure of trade secrets. 

There are exceptions to these requirements for criminal investigations,

source code acquired or developed for internal use rather than being available

for commercial distribution, any communications between the software owner

and the taxpayer, and any tax-related computer source code that is required to

be produced by some other section of the Code. I.R.C. § 7612(b)(2).

4. Summons pursuant to Tax Treaty and Tax Information

Exchange

The IRS may exercise its summons authority to carry out any obligations

of the United States under a bilateral tax treaty or tax information exchange

agreement (TIEA) with the United States. A TIEA allows both parties to
68 May 2006

obtain from each other information that “may be necessary or appropriate to

carry out and enforce the[ir] tax laws.” I.R.C. § 274(h)(6)(C)(i). The United

States is party to more than 50 bilateral tax treaties and 15 bilateral TIEAs

which can be used by either the United States or its treaty partner to obtain

documents and testimony located in the other party’s territory for criminal

and civil tax investigations and proceedings. These pacts are concluded by the

United States Department of Treasury, with the assistance of the IRS and the

Tax Division of the Department of Justice, and are administered by the

Director, International, Large and Mid-Size Business Division, IRS, as the

Competent Authority for the United States.

When a treaty partner makes a request to the United States under one of

these pacts, the Office of the Competent Authority refers the matter to either

a revenue agent or special agent in the field where the evidence is located, and

directs the agent to undertake the execution of the request. The agent will

attempt to obtain the requested information by asking the witness(es) or

record holder(s) in question to provide such information voluntarily, but, if the

information cannot be obtained voluntarily, the agent will issue summons(es)

on behalf of the treaty partner to obtain the requested information.

The Tax Division typically conducts such litigation arising from a

summons issued on behalf of a treaty partner in much the same way as it

would with respect to an IRS summons issued for a domestic tax investigation. 

This summary procedure has been explicitly approved in the context of an IRS

summons issued in furtherance of the Government’s obligations under a tax

treaty or TIEA. United States v. Stuart, 489 U.S. 353 (1989); Barquero v.

United States, 18 F.3d 1311, 1316 (5th Cir. 1994). To obtain enforcement of a

treaty partner summons, the IRS must establish the four Powell factors. 

While the IRS must establish its good faith in issuing the summons, the IRS

does not have to attest to – much less prove – the good faith of the requesting

nation. Mazurek v. United States, 271 F.3d 226, 231 (5th Cir. 2001).

The Government makes a prima facie showing for enforcement by

submitting, in addition to the declaration of the IRS agent who issued the

summons, the declaration of the U.S. Competent Authority responsible for

administering the tax treaty in question. Stuart, 489 U.S. at 360; Barquero,

18 F.3d at 1316-17. 

 The Competent Authority’s declaration should include a description of

the duties and responsibilities of the Competent Authority (i.e., administering
69 May 2006

all exchange of information programs under tax treaties and exchange of

information agreements) and the identification and description of the foreign

request. In general, the Competent Authority should aver that:

(1) the summons was issued and served in response to a request by a

foreign government; 

(2) the Competent Authority personally reviewed the request; 

(3) the Competent Authority determined that the request is properly

within the scope of the tax treaty in question; 

(4) the Competent Authority determined that it is appropriate for the

United States to give assistance to the foreign country in question

pursuant to the request; 

(5) the foreign tax authorities have reason to believe that the subject of

the foreign tax inquiry may have failed to comply with the foreign

country’s tax laws during the periods covered by the summons; 

(6) the requested information is not within the possession of the IRS or

the foreign authorities; 

(7) the requested information may be relevant to a determination of the

foreign subject’s tax liability; 

(8) the same type of information can be obtained by the foreign tax

authorities under the foreign country’s tax laws; 

(9) it is the understanding of the parties to the tax treaty in question

that information exchanged will only be used by the applicant State

for the purposes identified in the tax treaty; 

(10) exchanged information may only be disclosed as required in the

normal administrative or judicial process operative in the

administration of the tax system of the applicant State; and

(11) improper use of the information would be protested and, if continued,

would lead to recommendations to terminate the tax treaty. 

An attorney to whom a treaty-partner summons is assigned may obtain

the declaration of the Competent Authority by contacting Branch 7, Associate

Chief Counsel (International), IRS. That office may also provide advice and

other forms of assistance for the conduct of the litigation.

5. Designated summonses (I.R.C. § 6503(j))

Designated summonses are very rare. All proceedings involving such

summonses are handled by the Tax Division. 
 Before the 1998 IRS reorganization, the CIC program was called the 9

coordinated examination program (CEP). CIC is the successor to CEP.

 This statutory requirement was added after the decision in United States v. 10

Derr, 968 F. 2d 943 (9th Cir. 1992), which held that the examining agent had the

authority to issue a designated summons.

70 May 2006

Examinations of large corporations may warrant the application of a team

examination approach and the examination may qualify as a “Coordinated

Industry Case” (CIC). See I.R.M. §§ 4.45.1.2, et seq. Designated summonses 9

are only issued in connection with a CIC. I.R.M. § 25.5.3.3(2); I.R.C. § 6503

(j)(1). Often in CIC exams, taxpayers will agree to extend the statute of

limitations on assessment in order to permit the IRS to complete the audit and

obtains the information it needs by asking for the information through

information document requests (IDR’s). However, on occasion, a CIC taxpayer

will decline to voluntarily produce information the IRS agents need to

complete the audit, and will also decline to voluntarily extend the statute of

limitations. In such circumstances the IRS can unilaterally extend the statute

of limitations on assessment by issuing a designated summons and seeking

judicial enforcement of that summons (or related summonses issued within

thirty days of the issuance of the designated summons). This helps explain

why designated summons cases are often contentious – the IRS is holding the

statute of limitations open when the taxpayer does not want the statute

extended. 

A designated summons must meet three specific requirements: 

(1) Prior to issuance, a designated summonses must be reviewed by Area

Counsel of the Office of Chief Counsel, for the region where the

examination is being conducted. I.R.C. § 6503(j)(2)(A)(i);10

(2) A designated summons must be issued at least 60 days before the

statute of limitations will expire (including any extensions the

taxpayer has agreed to. I.R.C. § 6503(j)(2)(A)(ii);

(3) And the summons must specifically state on its face that it is a

designated summons. I.R.C. § 6503(j)(2)(A)(iii). 

The standard for enforcement of a designated summons is the Powell

standard. It is not necessary for the IRS to make any showing that the
71 May 2006

taxpayer had been uncooperative in the audit prior to the issuance of the

summons. United States v. Derr, 968 F.2d 943 (9th Cir. 1992). 

The IRS may only issue one designated summons per return. However,

the IRS may issue other summonses within the 30-day period beginning when

the designated summons is issued that relate to the same return which also

will hold the statute of limitations open during the judicial enforcement

period. I.R.C. § 6503(j)(1)(A)(ii). 

The designated summons does not itself toll the running of the statute of

limitations. If the designated summons or a related summons is enforced, the

statute of limitations remains suspended for 120 days after the end of the

judicial enforcement period. I.R.C. § 6503 (j)(1)(B). If the designated

summons is not enforced, the statute remains open for 60 days after the close

of the judicial enforcement period. 

The IRS must seek judicial enforcement of the designated or related

summonses before the statute of limitations expires. If it does so, the statute

of limitations is suspended during the judicial enforcement period, which is

defined as the period beginning of the day the proceeding to enforce the

summons is brought and ending on the day on which there is a “final

resolution” as to the summoned person’s response to each summons. I.R.C.

§ 6503(j)(3). 

The term “final resolution” of the summoned person’s response to such

summons is not defined by statute. The IRS has issued proposed regulations

dealing with this question. Prop. Treas. Reg. § 20.8199-91, 68 Fed. Reg.

44905-01 (2003), reprinted in 2003-2 C.B. 756. The proposed regulations,

relying on the legislative history, assert that the term “final resolution” in the

context of a designated summons is the same as it is under I.R.C. § 7609

(e)(2)(B), namely that no court proceedings remain pending, the period for

appeal has run, and the summoned party has fully complied with the

summons to the extent ordered by the court. If all appeal periods have expired

but the summoned party has not complied with the summons to the extent

required by the court order, the proposed regulations provide that final

resolution does not occur until the summoned party has complied with the

summons to the extent of the court order.

However, because designated summonses are issued in connection with

the audit of large corporate returns, the summoned information is often
72 May 2006

voluminous and complex. Therefore, it is not always the case that the IRS

agents will be able to immediately determine that the taxpayer has fully

complied. The proposed regulations deal with this problem by stating that the

determination of compliance will be made as soon as practicable, and that

notice of the determination shall be made in writing within five days. If the

taxpayer is not satisfied with leaving this issue in the hands of the IRS, it may

give the IRS a written statement of compliance that requests the IRS issue a

determination that the taxpayer has fully complied with the summons. If the

taxpayer files a statement of compliance within 180 days of receipt of the

statement, the IRS must notify the taxpayer by certified mail that the IRS is

not satisfied with the taxpayer’s compliance. If the IRS does not issue such a

notice, the summons will be deemed to have been complied with as of the

180th day after the statement of compliance was received. 

III. PROCEDURES

A. PETITION TO ENFORCE

1. Which office should file

The United States Attorneys Manual §§ 6-5.210 and 6-5.221 provide that,

in general, IRS Chief Counsel attorneys may directly refer to the United

States Attorneys routine requests to enforce summonses and to defend

petitions to quash. Cases involving sensitive or novel issues should be

referred to and are to be handled by the Tax Division. The manual provides

that Tax Division attorneys are to handle cases involving summonses issued to

or for: 

• attorneys 

• churches 

• newspapers and newspaper reporters

• tax accrual workpapers (tax pool analysis) 

• foreign document requests

• treaty partners or other matters with international implications 

• John Doe summonses

• Section 6050I

• novel/complex Fifth Amendment claims 

• computer software and other non-traditional items 

• state/local agencies and courts

• designated summonses 
73 May 2006

• consent directives

• Sections 6700 and 6701

• Sections 6707 and 6708

• other unique issues as may be determined from time to time.

Among the issues that the Tax Division has determined it should handle are 

all summons proceedings involving examinations of promoters of:

• tax shelters,

• scams,

• and schemes.

• In addition, the Division handles all summons proceedings arising

from the Offshore Credit Card Project when the summons involves a

request for offshore records.

The Chief of the appropriate Civil Trial Section should be notified

immediately of all adverse decisions. All appeals, whether initiated by the

United States or the other party, will be handled by the Appellate Section of

the Tax Division. U.S.A.M. § 6-5.230. If you have any questions, please

contact the Chief of the appropriate Civil Trial Section:

• Civil Trial Section, Central, Seth G. Heald, Chief

• Civil Trial Section, Northern, Patrick D. Mullarkey, Chief

• Civil Trial Section, Eastern, David A. Hubbert, Chief

• Civil Trial Section, Southern, Michael J. Kearns, Chief

• Civil Trial Section, Southwestern, Louise P. Hytken, Chief

• Civil Trial Section, Western, Richard R. Ward, Chief

2. Approvals

Proceedings to enforce certain types of summonses must be approved by

higher level officials at the Tax Division:

C Summonses to attorneys and law firms must be approved by the

Assistant Attorney General, Tax Division.
74 May 2006

C “John Doe” summonses must be approved by the Deputy Assistant

Attorney General, Tax Division.

C Summonses to the press or media for information other than purely

financial records unrelated to the news gathering function (e.g.,

employment records of an employee of a newspaper) must be

approved by the Attorney General. A request for such approval

should be submitted through the Deputy Assistant Attorney General

and Assistant Attorney General of the Tax Division.

3. Documents to File

Documents for submission may vary from court to court. Consult local

rules and practice to determine what is needed in your jurisdiction.

Documents for submission to the court to enforce a summons generally

include (1) petition, (2) declaration, and (3) proposed order to show cause. The

attached forms provide suggested language, but they should be tailored to fit

the requirements of the local jurisdictions.

The petition [Exhibit 2] provides the jurisdictional grounds for the suit,

asserts the underlying facts, and provides a request for relief. Fed. R. Civ. P.

8. It also demonstrates satisfaction of the relevant legal standards and tests. 

The agent issuing and serving the summons is generally the one signing

the declaration [Exhibit 3] for submission with the petition. It is a sworn

statement putting forward the relevant facts in the case. If the IRS provides

an agent declaration with the request to enforce, the assigned attorney should

review it carefully to assure that it satisfies all requirements necessary to

enforcement and does not contain any extraneous recitations. Moreover, the

attorney should review any declaration with the agent, even if it has already

been signed, to assure that it is still accurate and complete. Even though

establishing a prima facie case for enforcement through an agent’s declaration

“isn’t much of a hurdle,” 2121 Arlington Heights Corp. v. IRS, 109 F.3d 1221,

1224 (7th Cir. 1997), attorneys should take care to present persuasive support

for enforcement through the declarations. A well-drafted declaration should

anticipate defenses to enforcement.
75 May 2006

The typical proposed show cause order [Exhibit 4] either sets the time and

date for a hearing or provides a place for the court to do so. It also includes a

finding that the Powell factors have been met, and sets deadlines for any

response.

The order to show cause, when approved by the judge, represents a

determination that the United States has made a prima facie showing that the

Powell requirements have been satisfied and, consequently, shifts the burden

to the summoned person to demonstrate or “show cause” why the summons

should not be enforced. In order for the court to obtain personal jurisdiction

over the summoned person, the summoned person must be served with the

order to show cause. See United States v. Gilleran, 992 F.2d 232, 233 (9th Cir.

1993) (“The district court acquires personal jurisdiction over the taxpayer by

service of the show cause order and the petition for enforcement of the

summons.”); United States v. Miller, 609 F.2d 336, 338 (8th Cir. 1979) (service

of summons and complaint not required, as “[t]he district court predicated

personal jurisdiction on the service of the show cause order and the petition

for enforcement” on respondent); United States v. McCarthy, 514 F.2d 368, 372

(3d Cir. 1975) (“Process on the complaint could be in the form of an order

served on the person summoned fixing a deadline for filing any responsive

pleading, albeit an informal pleading, together with an affidavit, and any

motions, and directing that person to show cause at a date and time certain

why an order should not be entered enforcing the administrative summons. 

The order should provide that unless the court determines otherwise, any

motions and issues raised by the pleadings will be considered at the return

date of the order to show cause.”).

4. Service of order to show cause

After the court issues the order to show cause, it must be served on the

summoned party. Service of process other than a district court summons or a

subpoena is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.1, which provides for service by the

“United States marshal, or a person specially appointed for that purpose, who

shall make proof of service as provided in Rule 4(l).” Accordingly, the

proposed order to show cause presented to court should provide that service

may be made by any agent, officer, or other person designated by the IRS. A

copy of the petition, declaration, and any other document submitted to the

court in support of the petition must be served on the summoned party along

with the order to show cause. The proposed order to show cause should

provide for the method(s) of service and may propose alternative service
76 May 2006

methods for the court’s consideration. The person making service should

complete a proof of service provided by the trial attorney or Assistant United

States Attorney. 

5. Monitoring compliance

As soon as an order requiring compliance of a summons is received, the

attorney should forward it to the issuing agent with a request to be informed

whether there has been compliance. Under ordinary circumstances, the

issuing agent will receive the summoned documents and testimony. The

attorney should remain available to the agent to facilitate compliance. The

case file is not ready to be closed until the summoned party has complied. 

6. Contempt procedures 

An attorney assigned to a summons enforcement case should monitor the

case to assure full compliance with any enforcement order. If a party has not

fully complied with the summons, the attorney should attempt to confer with

the party to determine if the party will comply without additional judicial

action. Once the attorney determines that the party will not comply, the

attorney should file a motion to find the respondent in contempt. 

The motion should identify the order of the court (the summons

enforcement order) with which the respondent failed to comply, and should

detail the respondent’s noncompliance. The motion for contempt should be

supported with a declaration from the agent setting forth that respondent was

aware of the order and that respondent failed to comply with the order. The

motion for contempt is generally accompanied by a proposed order to show

cause why respondent should not be held in contempt, which sets a hearing

date for further court action.

At any hearing on contempt, the attorney should be prepared to address

any issues the respondent may raise for failing to comply, such as current nonpossession of the information, or the Fifth Amendment. The attorney should

also be prepared to address possible coercive sanctions for non-compliance,

including fines and incarceration. 
77 May 2006

B. RESPONDING TO PETITIONS TO QUASH

When a petition to quash a summons is filed, the Government should file

an appropriate response as soon as possible. The response may take the form

of a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, a motion for summary denial, a

counterclaim for enforcement, or something similar in accordance with local

practice.

The Government may, but is not obligated to, file a counter-petition or

motion to enforce the summons. (See Section II(B)(4)(b)). The United States

may simply move to dismiss the petition to quash pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6). See Cosme v. Internal Revenue Service, 708 F.Supp. 45, 48 (E.D.N.Y.

1989); Tarpley v. United States, 1997 WL 767577, *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec 11, 1997). 

If the United States files a motion to dismiss without simultaneously seeking

an order enforcing the summons, the United States need not establish a

Powell prima facie case; rather “‘the burden shifts immediately to the

petitioner to establish a valid defense to the summons.’” Knauss v. United

States, 28 F.Supp.2d 1252, 1254 (S.D.Fla. 1998) (quoting Cosme, 708 F.Supp.

at 48); Conrad v. United States, 1989 WL 165576, *1 (W.D.Mich. Nov 09,

1989); Deleeuw v. I.R.S., 681 F.Supp. 402 (E.D.Mich. 1987); Jungles v. United

States, 634 F.Supp. 585, 586 (N.D.Ill.1986). 

A declaration from the agent or office is necessary if filing a counterclaim

for enforcement, and may be appropriate to rebut allegations asserted in the

petition to quash. It is important to respond as quickly as possible so that the

IRS’s examination is not unduly delayed. 

C. DISCOVERY AND EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS

Most summons enforcement proceedings should be decided on the papers,

except for the very rare case where the party opposing enforcement has

established the existence of a question as to a material fact. Discovery thus is

rarely appropriate in summons proceedings, and evidentiary hearings are also

rare.

1. Limitations on discovery

The summary nature of summons proceedings limits the circumstances

under which discovery is available. United States v. Stuart, 489 U.S. 353, 369

(1989) (quoting S. Rep. No. 97-494, vol. 1, at 285 (1982), reprinted in 1982
78 May 2006

U.S.C.C.A.N. 781, 1031. Discovery is rarely appropriate in summons cases. 

See United States v. Kis, 658 F.2d 526, 540 (7th Cir. 1981); Chen Chi Wang v.

United States, 757 F.2d 1000, 1004 (9th Cir. 1985); United States v. Will, 671

F.2d 963, 967-68 (6th Cir. 1982). In order for discovery to occur, a taxpayer

must make “a substantial preliminary showing that enforcement of the

summons would result in an abuse of the court’s process” and that “discovery

would likely lead to useful, relevant evidence.” Robert v. United States, 364

F.3d 988, 999-1000 (8th Cir. 2004). 

When respondents seek an opportunity to propound formal discovery

requests they often have the real and improper objective of trying to shift the

court’s focus from the Powell standard to a critique of the IRS’s investigative

techniques. This is not a proper inquiry for a summons enforcement

proceeding. Tiffany Fine Arts, Inc. v. United States, 469 U.S. 310, 323 (1985).

“[I]t is for the agency, and not the taxpayer, to determine the course and

conduct of an audit, and ‘the judiciary should not go beyond the requirements

of the statute and force IRS to litigate the reasonableness of its investigative

procedures.’” United States v. Norwest Corp., 116 F.3d 1227, 1233 (8th Cir.

1997) (quoting United States v. Clement, 668 F.2d 1010, 1013 (8th Cir. 1982)).

Sometimes respondents couch their requests for discovery in terms of

seeking to determine whether the summons was issued for an improper

purpose. The Court in Powell clearly did not intend to permit taxpayers to use

the “improper purpose” exception as a pretext for litigating the wisdom of the

IRS’s investigatory techniques. The mere allegation of improper purpose is

not sufficient to justify discovery. See United States v. Ladd, 471 F. Supp.

1150, 1153 n.3 (N.D. Tex. 1979) (no prehearing discovery when taxpayer failed

“to include circumstances upon which her claim of improper purpose was

based”). When the purported purpose of a discovery request is to inquire into

the motivation for an audit, the movant must show “extraordinary

circumstances” that set them apart from any other taxpayer. United States v.

Judicial Watch, Inc., 371 F.3d 824, 830-31 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (quoting SEC v.

McGoff, 647 F.2d 185, 193 (D.C. Cir. 1981)). 

 Indeed, some courts have held that they will not decide whether

discovery should be allowed until after an evidentiary hearing is held. United

States v. Harris, 628 F.2d 875, 882 (5th Cir. 1980) (citing with approval United

States v. Salter, 432 F.2d 697 (1st Cir. 1970) (discovery should be allowed in

summons enforcement proceedings only after the court has heard crossexamination of agent at the evidentiary hearing and determines that further
79 May 2006

discovery is necessary); United States v. McCarthy, 514 F.2d 368 (3d Cir.

1975); United States v. Church of Scientology, 520 F.2d 818 (9th Cir. 1975);

United States v. Abrahams, 905 F.2d 1276 (9th Cir. 1990); United States v.

Lask, 703 F.2d 293 (8th Cir. 1983); Kis, 658 F.2d at 542.

2. Evidentiary Hearings

Summons enforcement proceedings are intended to be summary in nature

with the sole purpose of insuring “that the IRS has issued the summons for a

proper purpose and in good faith.” United States v. BDO Seidman, 337 F.3d

802, 810 (7th Cir. 2003). Because summonses are issued during the

investigative stage, no guilt or liability on the part of the taxpayer need be

established. “The summons power ‘is not a power to procure or perpetuate

evidence at all; it is strictly inquisitorial.’” PAA Mgmt., Ltd. v. United States,

962 F.2d 212, 219 (2d Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). See also United States v.

Mueller, 930 F.2d 10, 12 (8th Cir. 1991) (taxpayer “could not use the

proceedings to enforce the IRS summons as a forum in which to contest the

validity of the underlying assessments”). Accordingly, “the enforcement

proceeding should be concluded expeditiously so that the actual investigation

can be continued.” Barrett, 837 F.2d at 1349. “[C]ourts have recognized that a

proceeding to enforce a tax summons is a most appropriate candidate for

streamlined procedures.” United States v. McCoy, 954 F.2d 1000, 1004 (5th

Cir. 1992).

While a district court may, in its discretion, allow the taxpayer an

evidentiary hearing to substantiate his allegations and supplement offers of

proof that the summons was not issued in good faith, the “right to an

adversary hearing . . . is not absolute.” United States v. Harris, 628 F.2d 875,

879 (5th Cir. 1980). “There is no requirement that the court conduct [an

evidentiary] hearing or permit discovery in each and every case. . . . [A] party

challenging IRS summonses will be entitled to an adversary hearing only upon

the production of some substantive evidence corroborating the claim of abuse.”

Hintze v. IRS, 879 F.2d 121, 126-27 (4th Cir. 1989). See also United States v.

BDO Seidman, 337 F.3d 802, 809 (7th Cir. 2003); Fortney v. United States, 59

F.3d 117, 121 (9th Cir. 1995); Copp v. United States, 968 F.2d 1435, 1438 n.1

(1st Cir. 1992); Alphin v. United States, 809 F.2d 236, 238 (4th Cir. 1987);

United States v. Balanced Fin. Mgmt., Inc., 769 F.2d 1440, 1444 (10th Cir.

1985); United States v. Tiffany Fine Arts, Inc., 718 F.2d 7, 14 (2d Cir. 1983),

aff'd, 469 U.S. 310 (1985); United States v. Kis, 658 F.2d 526, 539 n.39 (7th
80 May 2006

Cir. 1981); United States v. Nat’l Bank of South Dakota, 622 F.2d 365, 367 (8th

Cir. 1980).

D. THE ROLE OF MAGISTRATE JUDGES

A magistrate judge does not have authority to render a final decision in a

summons case. A magistrate judge’s powers are enumerated in Section 636(a)

of Title 28, and include procedural pretrial matters. Magistrate judges do not

have authority to make a final determination on motions for judgment on the

pleadings, for summary judgment, or other dispositive motions. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(a). A summons proceeding is not a procedural pre-trial motion,

and the respondent in a summons enforcement proceeding or petitioner who

seeks to quash a summons is entitled to a determination by an Article III

judge. See Peretz v. United States, 501 U.S. 923, 930-32 (1991). A summons

enforcement order is a final dispositive and appealable order, Reisman v.

Caplin, 375 U.S. 440, 449 (1964), beyond the authority of a magistrate judge to

issue. United States v. First Nat’l Bank, 628 F.2d 871, 873 (5th Cir. 1980);

United States v. Wisnowski, 580 F.2d 149 (5th Cir. 1978).

Proceedings may be conducted by a magistrate judge with the consent of

both parties. While reference to a magistrate judge for report and

recommendation, with a de novo determination by a district judge, satisfies

the constitutional requirements, a final decision by a magistrate judge absent

consent of the parties, does not. See Flournoy v. Marshall, 842 F.2d 875, 878

(6th Cir. 1988); Fowler v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1088, 1093 (11th Cir. 1990). An

appeal from an “order” issued by a magistrate judge, absent consent of the

parties, enforcing a summons will be subject to dismissal on the grounds that

the order is not final. United States v. Jones, 581 F.2d 816, 817 (10th Cir.

1978). See also Colorado Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. B.B. Andersen

Constr. Co., 879 F.2d 809, 811 (10th Cir. 1989). When a magistrate judge

mistakenly issues an “order” or “decision” rather than a report and

recommendation, the attorney should ask the district judge to construe the

magistrate judge’s ruling as a report and recommendation that the district

court enter an order enforcing the summons.

E. “JOHN DOE” SUMMONS PROCEDURES

A “John Doe” summons may be served only with judicial approval. I.R.C.

§ 7609(f). These cases are always handled by the Tax Division, and the
81 May 2006

Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Tax Division, should approve the suit

before it is filed. 

Similar to a suit to enforce a summons, a suit seeking authorization to

serve a John Doe summons is initiated by filing a petition and a declaration. 

The forms included in this manual contain suggested language. They may

require modification to conform with local rules and practices.

A petition [Exhibit 9] provides the jurisdictional grounds for the suit,

asserts the underlying facts, and provides a request for relief. Fed. R. Civ. P.

8. It also demonstrates satisfaction of the statutory requirements of § 7609(f). 

A declaration [Exhibit 10] must be submitted with the petition. It is a

sworn statement putting forward the facts that establish the criteria

necessary for a court to approve service of the summons: (1) that the summons

relates to the investigation of a particular person or ascertainable group or

class of persons; (2) that there is a reasonable basis for believing that such

person or group or class of persons may fail or may have failed to comply with

any provision of any internal revenue law; and (3) that the information sought

to be obtained from the examination of the records or testimony (and the

identity of the person or persons with respect to whose liability the summons

is issued) is not readily available from other sources. I.R.C. § 7609(f). 

A proceeding seeking the court’s authorization to serve a John Doe

summons is ex parte. Thus, the matter is ripe for the court’s consideration as

soon as it is filed. Filing a notice [Exhibit 13] calling that fact to the attention

of the court is recommended. 

Finally, a proposed order [Exhibit 12] should be submitted for the court’s

execution.

F. APPEAL PROCEDURES

All appeals in summons cases – whether or not adverse – will be handled

by the Appellate Section of the Tax Division. Exceptions to this policy must be
 http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title6/5mtax. 11

htm#6-5.230 

 http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title6/5mtax. 12

htm#6-5.700

82 May 2006

approved by the Assistant Attorney General of the Tax Division. See U.S.A.M.

§ 6-5.230. 

11

If the court does not fully enforce the summons, the order is considered

adverse. The Chief of the appropriate Civil Trial Section should be notified of

adverse summons-related decisions as soon as practicable. Id.

• Civil Trial Section, Central, Seth G. Heald, Chief

• Civil Trial Section, Northern, Patrick D. Mullarkey, Chief

• Civil Trial Section, Eastern, David A. Hubbert, Chief

• Civil Trial Section, Southern, Michael J. Kearns, Chief

• Civil Trial Section, Southwestern, Louise P. Hytken, Chief

• Civil Trial Section, Western, Richard R. Ward, Chief

When a case is decided in favor of the Government, the United States

Attorney should furnish the Tax Division with a copy of a notice of appeal or

cross-appeal filed by an adverse party as soon as possible (preferably within 5

days of the filing of the notice). See U.S.A.M. § 6-5.700. DOJ trial attorneys 12

should consult with their managers to ensure than the correct actions and

procedures are taken. 
83 May 2006

IV. FORMS

A. Checklist . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . Exhibit 1

B. Enforcement proceedings

1. Petition to Enforce. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Exhibit 2

2. Declaration in Support of Petition to Enforce. . . . . . . . . . . . Exhibit 3

3. Show Cause Order. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Exhibit 4

4. Certificate of Service. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . Exhibit 5

C. Proceedings to quash a summons

1. Motions to Dismiss.... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Exhibit 6

2. Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss. . . . . . . . . . . Exhibit 7

3. Order of Dismissal. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Exhibit 8

D. JOHN DOE SUMMONS

1. Ex Parte Petition for Leave to Serve “John Doe” Summons. . . . . . . . . .

.... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . Exhibit 9

2. Declaration in Support of Petition for Leave to Serve “John Doe”

Summons . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Exhibit 10

3. Memorandum in Support of Petition for Leave to Serve “John Doe”

Summons. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Exhibit 11

4. Order.... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . Exhibit 12

5. Notice of Filing Ex Parte Petition for Leave to Serve “John Doe”

Summons.. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Exhibit 13
Exhibit 1, page 2

CHECKLIST

T Requirement Reference

When seeking Enforcement. . . 

C Is the correct office handling the case? III.A.1

C Is special approval required? III.A.2

C File in the district where the summoned party

“resides or is found.”

II.B.4.a.

C Have the Powell Requirements been met?

C The summons was issued for a legitimate

purpose?

II.B.2.a.(1)

C The summoned information may be relevant? II.B.2.a.(2)

C The summoned information is not already in

possession of the IRS? 

II.B.2.a.(3)

C All administrative requirements have been met? II.B.2.a.(4)

C Summons was properly issued?

C Summons was properly served?

C Summons copy was attested?

C Notification to taxpayer proper for thirdparty recordkeeper summons?

C No Justice Department referral in effect? II.B.2.b.

C Is the declaration complete and accurate?

C Are the factual allegations of the petition

supported by the declaration? 

C Have you reviewed the declaration with the

agent?

When responding to a petition to quash . . . II.B.4.

C Was petition to quash timely filed?

C Was notice properly given?

C Was it filed in the district where the summoned party

“resides or is found?”

C Was service on the United States proper?
Exhibit 1, page 2

C Should the government file a cross-motion for

enforcement ?
Exhibit 2, Page 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

_________ DISTRICT OF_________

____________ DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Petitioner,

v.

 Case No. ______________________

____________________________

Respondent.

PETITION TO ENFORCE IRS SUMMONS

The United States of America petitions this Court for an order enforcing the IRS

administrative summons served on the respondent, __________________. In support, the United

States avers as follows:

1. Jurisdiction over this matter is conferred upon this Court by 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402 and 7604(a)

and by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1340 and 1345.

2. The summoned person [persons] resides or may be found within the boundaries of this

district.

3. ___________is a Revenue Agent/ Revenue Officer/ Special Agent of the Internal Revenue

Service, employed in the __________________ Division of the IRS in _____________.

4. Revenue Agent/ Revenue Officer/ Special Agent ________ is conducting an

examination/investigation for the purpose of [determining the correct federal

__________tax liabilities of __________for the periods ________________________]

[collecting the assessed, unpaid federal _______ tax liabilities of ____ for the periods
Exhibit 2, Page 3

___________________] [determining whether respondents committed any offense

connected with the administration or enforcement of the internal revenue law].

5. In his capacity as an IRS Revenue Agent/ Revenue Officer/ Special Agent ______________

is authorized to issue IRS summonses pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7602, 26 C.F.R. § 301.7602-

1, 26 C.F.R. § 301.7602-1T, and Internal Revenue Service Delegation Order No. 4 (as

revised).

6. Pursuant to the above-described investigation, on __________, Revenue Agent/ Revenue

Officer/ Special Agent __________ issued an IRS administrative summons to

_________________ directing ___________ to appear before Revenue Agent/ Revenue

Officer/ Special Agent _________ on ______________ at ___ a.m./p.m., at the place

identified in the summons. The summons directed ___________ to appear and to give

testimony and produce for examination certain books, papers, records, or other data as

described in the summons.

7. Revenue Agent/ Revenue Officer/ Special Agent _____________ served an attested copy of

the summons [by delivering in hand to ___________] [by leaving it at the last and usual

place of abode of the person to whom it was directed] [by delivering in hand to _______, an

officer of __________________ ] [by certified mail]. 

8. The respondent failed to appear on _______________, and, to date, has failed to comply

with the summons.

9. [Except for the documents indicated in Revenue Agent/ Revenue Officer/ Special Agent

________’s declaration] [T]he testimony and documents described in the summons are not

already in the possession of the IRS. [The United States does not seek enforcement of the

summons with respect to those documents already within the IRS’s possession.]
Exhibit 2, Page 3

10. All administrative steps required by the Internal Revenue Code for the issuance of the IRS

summons have been followed.

11. The testimony, books, records, papers, and/or other data sought by the summons may be

relevant to the IRS’s investigation.

12. No Justice Department referral is in effect within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 7602(d)(2)

with respect to _______ for the years under investigation.

13. In order to obtain enforcement of a summons, the United States must establish that the

summons: (1) is issued for a legitimate purpose; (2) seeks information relevant to that

purpose; (3) seeks information that is not already within the IRS’s possession; and (4)

satisfies all administrative steps required by the Internal Revenue Code. United States v.

Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58 (1964). 

14. The attached Declaration of Revenue Agent/ Revenue Officer/ Special Agent ________

establishes the government’s prima facie showing under Powell.

WHEREFORE, the United States respectfully prays as follows:

A. That this Court enter an order directing the respondent to show cause in writing, if

any, why he/she/it should not comply with and obey the aforementioned IRS summons and every

requirement thereof;

B. That this Court enter an order directing the respondent to fully obey the subject

summons and each requirement thereof, by ordering the attendance, testimony, and production

required and called for by the terms of the summons, before Revenue Agent/ Revenue Officer/

Special Agent ________, or any other proper officer or employee of the IRS, at such time and

place as may be set by Revenue Agent/ Revenue Officer/ Special Agent or any other proper

officer or employee of the IRS;
Exhibit 2, Page 3

C. That the United States recover its costs incurred in maintaining this proceeding; and

D. That the Court grant such other and further relief as the Court deems proper or justice

may require.

Respectfully submitted this___ day of_______, ____.

 

United States Attorney

By: _________________
Exhibit 3, Page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

____________ DISTRICT OF _______

_____________ DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. ______________________

___________________,

Respondent.

DECLARATION OF REVENUE AGENT/ REVENUE OFFICER/

 SPECIAL AGENT _______________

I, _______________ declare:

1. I am a duly commissioned Revenue Agent/ Revenue Officer/ Special Agent employed in the

________________________ of the Internal Revenue Service [with a post of duty at

_____________]. Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7602, 26 C.F.R. § 301.7602-1, 26 C.F.R.

§ 301.7602-1T, and Internal Revenue Service Delegation Order No. 4 (as revised), I am

authorized to issue administrative summonses.

2. [_____________________is not my real name. It is a pseudonym I use in my official

capacity as an employee of the IRS. This pseudonym—used for privacy and safety

reasons—has been registered with the IRS, in accordance with IRS procedures (Internal

Revenue Manual 1.2.4), and all IRS procedures governing the use of pseudonyms have been

followed.]

3. [Except where noted to the contrary, I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth in

this Declaration, and, if called upon to testify to such matters, could do so competently.]
Exhibit 3, Page 2

4. In my capacity as a Revenue Agent/ Revenue Officer/ Special Agent, I am conducting an

examination/investigation for the purpose of [determining the correct federal

__________tax liabilities of __________for the periods ________________________]

[collecting the assessed, unpaid federal _______ tax liabilities of ____ for the periods

___________________] [determining whether respondents committed any offense

connected with the administration or enforcement of the internal revenue law].

5. Describe nexus between examination/investigation and the summoned records.

6. On ____________________in furtherance of my investigation, I issued an IRS

administrative summons to ______________. The summons directed ____ to appear at __

a.m/p.m. on_________, to give testimony and produce for examination certain books,

papers, records, or other data as described in the summons. A copy of the summons is

attached as Exhibit A.

7. In accordance with 26 U.S.C. § 7603, [I served] [At my direction _____________ served]

an attested copy of the summons directed to ________________[by delivering in hand to

___________] [by leaving it at the last and usual place of abode of the person to whom it

was directed] [by delivering in hand to _______, an officer of __________________ ] [by

certified mail]. A true and correct copy of the certificate of service is included as a part of

Exhibit A.

8. The respondent failed to appear at the appointed time and, to date, has failed to comply with

the summons.

9. [Attached to this declaration as Exhibit B is a list of the documents the IRS has obtained and

those which it still seeks. With the exception of the specific documents indicated in Exhibit
Exhibit 3, Page 3

B as already received,] [T]he books, records, papers and other data sought by the summons

are not already in the possession of the Internal Revenue Service.]

10. The testimony, books, records, papers, and/or other data sought by the summons may be

relevant to this investigation. Explain why.

11. No Justice Department referral, as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 7602(d)(2), is in effect with

respect to __________________________ for the years under investigation. 

12. All administrative steps required by the Internal Revenue Code for issuance of the summons

have been followed.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this day of _________, ____.

 

Revenue Agent/ Revenue Officer/ Special Agent

Internal Revenue Service
Exhibit 4, Page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

_______ DISTRICT OF _____________

____________DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. ______________________

,

Respondent/s.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Upon the petition of the United States and the Declaration of Revenue Agent

_____________, including the exhibits attached thereto, it is hereby

ORDERED that the respondent/s, ____________________appear before the Honorable

________________, in that Judge's courtroom in the United States Courthouse,

_____________________________on the _______ day of _______________, ____, at _______

__.m., to show cause why ______________ should not be compelled to obey the Internal

Revenue Service summonses served upon __________.

It is further ORDERED that:

1. A copy of this Order, together with the petition and its exhibits, shall be served in

accordance with Rule 4(e) [(h)] of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure upon the respondent/s

within [21] days of the date that this Order is served upon counsel for the United States or as soon

thereafter as possible. Pursuant to Rule 4.1(a), the Court hereby appoints Revenue Agent/

Revenue Officer/ Special Agent ___________, or any other person designated by the IRS to

effect service in this case.
Exhibit 4, Page 2

2. Proof of any service done pursuant to paragraph 1, above, shall be filed with the Clerk

as soon as practicable.

3. Because the file in this case reflects a prima facie showing that the investigation is

being conducted for a legitimate purpose, that the inquiries may be relevant to that purpose, that

the information sought is not already within the Commissioner's possession, and that the

administrative steps required by the Internal Revenue Code have been substantially followed, the

burden of coming forward has shifted to the respondents to oppose enforcement of the

summonses.

4. If the respondent/s has/have any defense to present or opposition to the petition, such

defense or opposition shall be made in writing and filed with the Clerk and copies served on

counsel for the United States, at least [14] days prior to the date set for the show cause hearing.

The United States may file a reply memorandum to any opposition at least 5 days prior to the date

set for the show cause hearing.

5. At the show cause hearing, only those issues brought into controversy by the

responsive pleadings and factual allegations supported by affidavit will be considered. Any

uncontested allegation in the petition will be considered admitted.

6. Respondents may notify the Court, in a writing filed with the Clerk and served on

counsel for the United States at the address(es) on the petition, at least [14] days prior to the date

set for the show cause hearing, that the respondents have no objection to enforcement of the

summonses. The respondents’ appearance at the hearing will then be excused.

The respondents are hereby notified that a failure to comply with this Order may subject

them to sanctions for contempt of court.
Exhibit 4, Page 3

DONE and ORDERED at _______, _____________this ______ day of

______________________, _____.

_________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Exhibit 5, Page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

_________ DISTRICT OF_________

____________ DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. ______________________

____________________________

Respondent.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies under penalty of perjury that he or she is an employee of

the Internal Revenue Service, is not a party to this action, and is a person of such age and

discretion as to be competent to serve papers.

On _____ day of ______________, _______, I served a copy of the below-listed papers

upon _______________________, by

(check and complete one)

 ____ Hand-delivering a copy to _______, at _________________________

____________________________________________________________

_____ Leaving a copy of each pleading at the respondent's dwelling house or usual

place of abode with a person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein.

 Name of person with whom the summons and complaint were left: 

 .
Exhibit 5, Page 2

Papers served:

1) Order to Show Cause Re: Enforcement of Internal Revenue Summonses;

2) United States' Petition to Enforce an Internal Revenue Service Summonses;

3) Declaration of Revenue Agent ____. 

I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed: __________________ ________________________________

Date Signature
Exhibit 6, Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

___________ DISTRICT OF ___________

____________ DIVISION

______________________, )

)

Petitioner__, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. ___________

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Respondent. )

MOTION TO DISMISS

The respondent, the United States of America, by its attorney, __________________, and

pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure moves the Court for the entry of

an Order dismissing the above-titled action on the grounds that the commencement and

maintenance of the action is barred by the sovereign immunity of the United States; that the Court

lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding; and that it fails to state a claim for

which relief may be granted.

A memorandum in support of this motion is filed and served concurrently herewith.

United States Attorney

By: ________________________________

Trial Attorney, Tax Division

U.S. Department of Justice

Post Office Box ___

Ben Franklin Station

Washington, D.C. 20044

Telephone: (202) ____
Exhibit 6, Page 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that service of the above Motion has this ____ day of

__________________, 20_, been effected upon petitioner__ by depositing a copy in the United

States mail at Washington, D.C., postage paid, addressed to petitioner(s)as follows, and 

_____________________________

[Additionally, as a courtesy, and for informational purposes only, [a] copy(ies) of the above

[was/were] mailed to the summoned person__ at the address set forth on [each of] the

summons__.]
Exhibit 7, Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

___________ DISTRICT OF __________

____________ DIVISION

___________________________, )

)

Petitioner__, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.___________

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RESPONDENT'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF

 MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION TO QUASH 

The above-titled action has been brought by ______________ seeking to quash ______

Internal Revenue Service summons__ issued to "______________."

The respondent, United States of America, has moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds

that the action is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity, that the Court lacks jurisdiction to

entertain the proceeding, and that it fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a petition to quash [a] summons__

issued to [a] person__ who [is/are] not [a] third-party.

2. [Formulate questions appropriate to the case.]

INTRODUCTION

Sections 7602 through 7609 of the Internal Revenue Code govern the procedure applicable

to issuance, compliance, enforcement, and challenges of summonses. Section 7602 is a broad
Exhibit 7, Page 2

grant of authority that applies to all summonses issued as part of an investigation of tax liability. 

See United States v. Euge, 444 U.S. 707, 714 (1980); United States v. Arthur Young & Co.,

465 U.S. 805, 816 (1984). Section 7609 is a detailed description of the procedures which apply

to, and rights created by, issuance of a special category of summonses – third-party summonses. 

One entitled to receive notice of a third-party summons may bring a proceeding to quash the

summons. 

The "proceeding to quash" procedure, first enacted in 1982 as part of the Tax Equity and

Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA), was intended to provide some assurance that taxpayer

interference with legitimate law enforcement efforts would be based on proper grounds and not

merely interposed on frivolous grounds resulting in fruitless delays, as had frequently been the

case before the passage of TEFRA. See S. Rep. No. 97-494, vol. 1, at 282, reprinted in 1982

U.S.C.C.A.N. 781, 1027; Godwin v. United States, 564 F. Supp. 1209, 1211-1212 (D. Del. 1983).

ARGUMENT

I

THE UNITED STATES HAS NOT WAIVED ITS SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

Section 7609(b)(2), which allows a proceeding to quash an Internal Revenue Service

summons to be brought against the United States constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity. See

Stringer v. United States, 776 F. 2d 274, 275 (11th Cir. 1985). Like all such waivers, the one

contained in Section 7609 must be strictly construed. See Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156, 160

(1981); Soriano v. United States, 352 U.S. 270 (1957). “Men must turn square corners when they

deal with the Government. If it attaches even purely formal conditions to its consent to be sued

those conditions must be complied with.” Rock Island A. & L.R. Co. v. United States, 254 U.S.

141, 143 (1920). These statutes are jurisdictional and limit the power of the federal courts to
Exhibit 7, Page 3

adjudicate claims against the United States. F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994)

(“Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature.”).

Because Section 7609(b) is not applicable here [has not been complied with], and no other

statute waives sovereign immunity for the instant suit, this Court lacks jurisdiction and the action

should be dismissed. [Insert discussion of 7609 requirements, as appropriate.]

Petition Not Timely

One of the conditions of the United States’ waiver of sovereign immunity is that a petition

to quash must be commenced within 20 days of the date notice of the summons is given. Section

7609(b)(2)(A). Where, as here, the action was not commenced against the United States as

prescribed by statute, the Court must dismiss the petition. Berman v. United States, 264 F.3d 16,

19 (1st Cir. 2001) (motion to quash must be filed within 20 days of mailing notice); accord

Faber v. United States, 921 F.2d 1118 (10th Cir. 1990); Stringer v. United States, 776 F.2d 274

(11th Cir. 1985); Ponsford v. United States, 771 F.2d 1305, 1309 (9th Cir. 1985). Section

7609(b)(2)(A) provides, in part, “any person who is entitled to notice of a summons under

subsection (a) shall have the right to begin a proceeding to quash such summons not later than the

20th day after the day such notice is given in the manner provided in subsection (a)(2).” 

Subsection (a)(2) of Section 7609 provides, “notice shall be sufficient if . . . such notice . . . is

mailed by certified or registered mail to the last known address of such person. . . .” Thus, the

date that notice of the summons was mailed begins the running of the 20-day period. Shipley v.

United States, 74 A.F.T.R.2d 94-7713 (E.D. Cal. 1994); Brohman v. United States, 587 F. Supp.

62 (W.D.N.Y. 1984); Riggs v. United States, 575 F. Supp. 738 (N.D. Ill. 1983); Grisham v.

United States, 578 F. Supp. 73 (S.D.N.Y. 1983); Bilodeau v. United States, 577 F. Supp. 234

(N.H. 1983).
Exhibit 7, Page 4

The certificates of service and of notice on the summons__ demonstrate that proper notice

was given on _______________, in the manner as required by 26 U.S.C. Section 7609(a). This

petition to quash was filed on ______________________, 200__, more than 20 days after notice

was given. Accordingly, since the United States has not consented to be sued except as to suits

filed “not later than the 20th day after such notice is given,” sovereign immunity has not been

waived and the petition should be dismissed.

Summons Out of District.

Section 7609(h)(1) provides that the district court in which the summoned person "resides

or is found" shall have jurisdiction to entertain an otherwise proper petition to quash. This

provision is a jurisdictional requirement rather than a matter of venue. Deal v. United States, 759

F.2d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 1985); Fortney v. United States, 59 F.3d 117, 119 (9th Cir. 1995). The

Fifth Circuit stated that jurisdiction is “vested in the district where the summons is to be

answered” rather than “by the location of the taxpayer.” Masat v. United States, 745 F.2d 985,

988 (5th Cir. 1984). See also, Beck v. United States, 2003 WL 1194253, 91 A.F.T.R.2d 2003-

1345 (6th Cir. 2003); Oldham v. United States, 89 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2095, 2097 (D. Or. 2002)

(the statute requires “something more than the Due Process analysis of minimum contacts” and

requires “a physical presence within the forum”).

In this case, the summoned person, _______, neither resides nor is found in this judicial

district. [Insert appropriate facts.] Accordingly, the petition must be dismissed. 

Section 7609 does not apply to the type of summons at issue in this case.

Section 7609(c) defines the types of summonses that can be challenged under 7609(b)(2)

and expressly excepts certain summonses. Section 7609(b)(2) does not apply to any summons

[“served on the person with respect to whom the summons is issued.” § 7609(c)(2)(A).]
Exhibit 7, Page 5

[issued in aid of collection. § 7609(c)(2)(D)]

[“issued by a criminal investigator of the Internal Revenue Service in connection with the

investigation of an offense connected with the administration or enforcement of the internal

revenue laws; and served on any person who is not a third-party recordkeeper (as defined in

section 7603((b)).” § 7609(c)(2)(E). Section 7603(b)(2) provides that the following ten

categories of persons are "third-party recordkeepers": (A) banks; (B) consumer reporting

agencies; (C) persons extending credit through credit cards or other similar devices; (D) brokers;

(E) attorneys; (F) accountants; (G) any barter exchange; (H) regulated investment companies and

their agents; (I) enrolled agents; and (J) owner or developer of a computer software source code

(as defined in section 7612(d)(2)).]

Failure to Comply with the Requirements of Section 7609(b)(2)(b).

Petitioner failed to comply with the requirement of Section 7609(b)(2)(B) to send a copy

of the petition by registered or certified mail to both the summoned person and the issuing agent

within 20 days after the IRS gave notice. Dorsey v. United States, 618 F. Supp. 471 (D. Md.

1985); Yocum v. United States, 586 F. Supp. 317 (N.D. Ind. 1984) (failure to give notice to

Internal Revenue Service); Fogelson v. United States, 579 F. Supp. 573 (D. Kan. 1983) (oral

notice to summoned party inadequate); McTaggart v. United States, 570 F. Supp. 547, 551

(E.D. Mich. 1983) (failure to give notice to summoned party).

II

THE PROVISIONS OF THE PRIVACY AND

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACTS DO NOT

APPLY TO IRS SUMMONSES

The government need not comply with either the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, et seq., or

the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, et seq., as a prerequisite to issuing or enforcing a
Exhibit 7, Page 6

summons. United States v. McAnlis, 721 F. 2d 334, 337 (11th Cir. 1983); Uhrig v. United States,

592 F. Supp. 349, 353 (D. Md. 1984); McTaggert v. United States, 570 F. Supp. 547, 550

(E.D. Mich. 1983); United States v. Will, 475 F. Supp. 492, 494 (M.D. Fla. 1979). Neither act

contains any provision which allows either the quashing or the denial of enforcement of an

Internal Revenue Service summons as a remedy for any alleged failure to provide information or

to maintain secrecy as required by those acts. Indeed, it would be inconsistent with the intent of

Congress, which urges the speedy enforcement of summonses, if the Court were to allow such a

challenge to the summons[es] to be maintained.

III

IMPROPER SERVICE

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i) provides that service upon the United States shall be effected by

delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the United States Attorney for the district in

which the action is brought and by sending a copy of the summons and complaint to the Attorney

General of the United States at Washington, D.C. In this case, [state the facts in your case].

Accordingly, unless the petitioners show a justifiable excuse for their failure to serve properly,

the petition should be dismissed for insufficiency of service of process. See Hart v. United

States, 817 F.2d 78, 80 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Additionally, the petition should be dismissed based on Petitioners’ failure to obtain

issuance of a summons. As with a complaint, a petition to quash an IRS summons requires the

issuance of a summons under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. See Kish v. United States, 77 A.F.T.R.2d 96-

1305, 1996 WL 196730, *1 (W.D.Mich. 1996); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(b) and (c) (summons

shall be issued for each defendant to be served and must be served together with a copy of the
Exhibit 7, Page 7

complaint). In this case, [state the facts in your case]. For this reason, the petition should be

dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(4).

Petitioners may argue that they are entitled to a reasonable time to cure the defective

service in this case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(3). That rule is inapplicable, however. Rule 4(i)(3)

applies only when the plaintiff must serve federal officers in addition to the U.S. Attorney and the

Attorney General. Tuke v. United States, 76 F.3d 155, 158 (7th Cir. 1996). Even if the rule was

applicable to this case, it entitles a plaintiff time to cure defective service only “if the plaintiff has

served either the United States attorney or the Attorney General of the United States.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 4(i)(3)(A). In this case, [state the facts in your case] . Therefore, Petitioners’ case must

be dismissed. 

IV

PETITIONER FAILS TO STATE

A CLAIM FOR WHICH RELIEF CAN

BE GRANTED

The petitioner fails to set forth any allegations which would constitute a legally sufficient

challenge or defense to the enforcement of the IRS summons.

[Identify and deal with objections raised in petition].
Exhibit 7, Page 8

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the proceeding should be dismissed.

Respectfully submitted,

 

United States Attorney

By: 

Assistant United States Attorney

 

Trial Attorney, Tax Division 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Post Office Box ____

Ben Franklin Station

Washington, D.C. 20044

Telephone: (202) 
Exhibit 8, Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

 DISTRICT OF

 DIVISION

)

)

Petitioner__, )

)

v. ) CIVIL NO. _____________

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. )

)

Respondent__. )

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This matter having been submitted to the Court on the motion of the United States to

dismiss the above-titled action to quash summons, the Court having considered the matter on the

papers pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for good cause shown, it

is this ______ day of _____________, 200__, hereby

ORDERED that the above-titled proceeding is dismissed [for the reason--].

DONE and ORDERED at _______, ________, this _____ day of _________________,

200__.

___________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Exhibit 9, Page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

_____________ DISTRICT OF____________

_____________ DIVISION

IN THE MATTER OF THE TAX 

LIABILITIES OF:

JOHN DOES, United States taxpayers who, 

during [ tax period and identify group]

EX PARTE PETITION FOR LEAVE

TO SERVE “JOHN DOE” SUMMONS

The United States of America avers as follows:

1. This ex parte proceeding is commenced pursuant to Sections 7402(a), 7609(f), and

7609(h) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.), for leave to serve an Internal Revenue

Service “John Doe” summons upon ________________________.

2. __________________ is found at ______________________ within the jurisdiction of

this Court.

3. As explained in the Declaration of Revenue Agent ______________ attached as Exhibit

A, the Internal Revenue Service is conducting an investigation to determine the correct

federal __________ tax liabilities, for [periods] of United States taxpayers who [describe

group].

4. In furtherance of this investigation, the Internal Revenue Service, [has issued] [once

service of the summons is authorized by the Court, will issue] under the authority of

Section 7602 of the Internal Revenue Code, an administrative “John Doe” summons

to_______________. A copy of the summons is attached to the Exhibits Appendix to

Declaration of Revenue Agent_________ at Tab 1.
Exhibit 9, Page 2

5. The “John Doe” summons relates to the investigation of an ascertainable group or class of

persons, that is, United States taxpayers who, [describe group]. There is a reasonable

basis for believing that such group or class of persons may fail, or may have failed, to

comply with one or more provisions of the Internal Revenue laws. The information

sought to be obtained from the examination of the records or testimony (and the identity

of the persons with respect to whose tax liabilities the summonses have been issued) is not

readily available from other sources.

6. In support of this Petition, the United States submits a Declaration of Revenue Agent

_____________________ attached as Exhibit A; the Exhibits Appendix to the Declaration

of Revenue Agent_________; and a Memorandum.

WHEREFORE, the United States respectfully requests:

A. That this Court enter an order permitting service of an Internal Revenue Service

“John Doe” summons to ____________________ in substantially the form as attached to the

Exhibits Appendix to the Declaration of Revenue Agent _________at Tab 1; and

B. That this Court grant such other and further relief as the Court deems proper or

justice may require.

_____________________

United States Attorney

By: __________________________

Trial Attorney, Tax Division

U.S. Department of Justice
Exhibit 10, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

_____________ DISTRICT OF____________

_____________ DIVISION

IN THE MATTER OF THE TAX 

LIABILITIES OF:

JOHN DOES, United States taxpayers who, 

during [ tax period and identify group]

DECLARATION OF _____________________

I, _____________ pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1746, declare and state:

# I am a Revenue Agent/Officer __________________with the

_________________Division of the Internal Revenue Service. I have been a Revenue

Agent/Officer for __ years. [Describe specific relevant training and experience]

# The Internal Revenue Service is conducting an investigation to determine the

correct federal tax liabilities, for [periods] of United States taxpayers who [identify group]

# To facilitate this investigation, the Internal Revenue Service, [has issued] [once

authorized by the court, will issue] under the authority of Section 7602 of the Internal Revenue

Code (26 U.S.C.), a “John Doe” summons to _____________________ and its affiliates and

subsidiaries. A copy of this summons is attached to the Exhibits Appendix, submitted

contemporaneously with this Declaration, at Tab 1.

# [Describe the summoned party and records sought. ] The records sought by the

summons will reveal the identities of and/or disclose transactions by persons who may be liable

for federal taxes and will enable the Internal Revenue Service to investigate whether those

persons have complied with the internal revenue laws.
Exhibit 10, page 2

# Based on information received by the Internal Revenue Service, it is likely that a

significant number of the persons who have 

[Detail the basis for the belief that the “John Doe” class has failed, or may have failed,

to comply with the internal revenue laws. ]

[Detail the history of the IRS’s investigation of the class and how the information

summoned may assist in that investigation.]

# The summons to _________________ seeks to identify persons in the ‘John

Doe’ class not yet identified. [Give details]

# Based upon the foregoing, I have concluded the “John Doe” summons relates to

the investigation of an ascertainable group or class of persons; there is a reasonable basis for

believing that such group or class of persons may fail, or may have failed, to comply with one

or more provisions of the Internal Revenue laws; and the information sought to be obtained

from the examination of the records or testimony (and the identity of the persons with respect to

whose tax liabilities the summonses have been issued) is not readily available from other

sources.

I declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1746, that the

foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this _______ day of __________

______________________

Revenue Agent/Officer

Internal Revenue Service
Exhibit 11, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

_____________ DISTRICT OF____________

_____________ DIVISION

IN THE MATTER OF THE TAX 

LIABILITIES OF:

JOHN DOES, United States taxpayers who, 

during [ tax period and identify group]

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF 

EX PARTE PETITION FOR LEAVE

TO SERVE “JOHN DOE” SUMMONS

The United States of America respectfully submits the following Memorandum in

support of its EX PARTE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE JOHN DOE SUMMONS:

INTRODUCTION

This is an ex parte proceeding brought by the United States of America, pursuant to

Sections 7609(f) and (h) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.), for leave to serve an

Internal Revenue Service “John Doe” summons upon _____________. Section 7609(f) provides

that a summons which does not identify the person with respect to whose liability it is issued

may be served only after a court proceeding in which the United States establishes certain

factors. These types of summonses are known as “John Doe” summonses. Section 7609(h)(1)

provides that a district court in which the person to be summoned resides or is found shall have

jurisdiction to hear and determine any proceeding brought under Section 7609(f). Section

7609(h)(2) provides that any determinations required to be made under Section 7609(f) shall be

made ex parte and shall be made solely on the petition and supporting affidavits.
The term “United States taxpayer” refers to all persons subject to tax in the 13

United States. All United States citizens and resident aliens are liable for federal

income taxes on income received from sources within or without the United States;

nonresident aliens are only liable for taxes on income from sources within the

United States. Pursuant to Section 7701(b)(1), an alien may be treated as a resident

for the purposes of income taxation if he (1) is a lawful permanent resident of the

United States, (2) meets the substantial presence test (this is an objective test in

which the number of days the alien is present in the United States are counted), or

(3) makes an election to be treated as a resident. See Lujan v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo

2000-365, 2000 WL 1772503 (2000).

Exhibit 11, page 2

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Whether, as required by Section 7609(f), the United States of America has demonstrated

(1) that the “John Doe” summons which the Internal Revenue Service desires to serve upon 

_____________ relates to the investigation of an ascertainable group or class of persons; (2)

that there is a reasonable basis for believing that such group or class of persons may fail or may

have failed to comply with any provision of any internal revenue law; and (3) that the

information sought to be obtained from the examination of the records or testimony (and the

identities of the persons with respect to whose liability the summons is issued) is not readily

available from other sources.

DISCUSSION

The Internal Revenue Service is conducting an investigation to determine the correct

federal income tax liabilities, for the years ended _____________, of United States taxpayers13

who _____________ 

In furtherance of this investigation, the United States is requesting authorization for the

IRS to serve a “John Doe” summons on _____________.
Exhibit 11, page 3

I. The Summons for Which the Government Seeks Authorization Meets the

Requirements of a “John Doe” Summons

Section 7601 of the Internal Revenue Code requires the Secretary of the Treasury to

“cause officers or employees of the Treasury Department to proceed, from time to time, through

each internal revenue district and inquire after and concerning all persons therein who may be

liable to pay any internal revenue tax.” Section 7602 authorizes the Secretary to summon

records and testimony for that purpose. Specifically, Section 7602 authorizes the Secretary

“[f]or the purpose of ascertaining the correctness of any return, making a return where none has

been made, [or] determining the liability of any person for any internal revenue tax . . . [t]o

summon . . . any person having possession, custody, or care of books of account containing

entries relating to the business of the person liable for tax . . ., or any other person the Secretary

may deem proper, to appear . . . and to produce such books, papers, records, or other data, and

to give such testimony, under oath, as may be relevant or material to such inquiry.”

Section 7602 is the Internal Revenue Service’s principal information-gathering

authority, and, accordingly, the courts have broadly construed it in light of its intended purpose

of furthering the effective conduct of tax investigations. Thus, the courts have repeatedly

rejected attempts to circumscribe or thwart the effective exercise of the Internal Revenue

Service’s summons power. See, e.g., United States v. Euge, 444 U.S. 707, 715-716 (1980);

United States v. Bisceglia, 420 U.S. 141 (1975); Couch v. United States, 409 U.S. 322, 338

(1973).

In Bisceglia, the Supreme Court held that Sections 7601 and 7602 empowered the

Internal Revenue Service to issue a “John Doe” summons to a bank to discover the identity of a

person who had engaged in certain bank transactions. This authority was subsequently codified
Exhibit 11, page 4

in Section 7609(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, as added by the Tax Reform Act of 1976.

Section 7609(f) provides:

Any summons . . . which does not identify the person with respect to

whose liability the summons is issued may be served only after a court

proceeding in which the Secretary establishes that – 

(1) the summons relates to the investigation of a particular

person or ascertainable group or class of persons,

(2) there is a reasonable basis for believing that such person or

group or class of persons may fail or may have failed to comply with any

provision of any internal revenue law, and

(3) the information sought to be obtained from the examination of

the records or testimony (and the identity of the person or persons with

respect to whose liability the summons is issued) is not readily available

from other sources.

The “John Doe” summons for which the United States seeks authorization in the instant case

meets those three requirements.

A. The Investigation Is Related to an Ascertainable Class

As required by Section 7609(f)(1), the group or class of persons to be investigated here

is ascertainable – United States taxpayers _____________ [describe ascertainable group or

class]. Where the identities of the taxpayers are yet not known, no greater specificity can be

expected in defining the group or class of persons.

B. Reasonable Basis Exists for the Belief That the Unknown Persons May Fail,

or May Have Failed to Comply with the Internal Revenue Laws

With respect to the second requirement, set forth in Section 7609(f)(2), the Declaration

of Revenue _____________ reflects a reasonable basis for believing that the unknown persons

whose identities are sought by the summonses may fail, or may have failed, to comply with one

or more provisions of the internal revenue laws. 
Exhibit 11, page 5

First, _____________ [describe transactions at issue] are inherently reasonably

suggestive of tax avoidance, given that tax avoidance is frequently the purpose for 

_____________. In United States v. Pittsburgh Trade Exchange, Inc., 644 F.2d 302, 306 (3d

Cir. 1981), the court held that the “reasonable basis” test had been met based upon a revenue

agent’s testimony that barter transactions of the type arranged by the Pittsburgh Trade

Exchange were “inherently susceptible to tax error.” In United States v. Ritchie, 15 F.3d 592,

601 (6 Cir. 1994), the court held that the mere payment for legal services with large amounts th

of cash is a reasonable basis for the issuance of a “John Doe” summons. Likewise, 

_____________ provides a reasonable basis for the issuance of the summons at issue.

[add additional legal support such as law review articles, cases, statutes]

Second, the Declaration of Revenue Agent _____________ [add factual support such as

newspaper articles, webpages and information about litigation and prosecutions involving

similarly situated taxpayers]. See, e.g., United States v. Brigham Young University, 679 F.2d

1345, 1349-50 (10 Cir. 1982), vacated for consideration of mootness, 459 U.S. 1095 (1983) th

(prior audit experience with other contributors that had overvalued “in kind” contributions was

a reasonable basis for issuing a “John Doe” summons for the identity of all “in kind”

contributors to Brigham Young University); United States v. Kersting, 891 F.2d 1407, 1409 (9

th

Cir. 1989) (“John Doe” summons enforced after district court found “the existence of at least

one case in which a Tax Court found some of Kersting’s programs to be abusive of the tax

code.”

C. The Identity of Persons in the Class Is Not Readily Available from Other

Sources

With respect to the third and final requirement set forth in Section 7609(f)(3), the

information sought (and the identity of the persons with respect to whose tax liabilities the
Exhibit 11, page 6

summonses have been issued) is not readily available to the Internal Revenue Service from

other sources, but is available from _____________.

Persons in the “John Doe” class may have filed tax returns with the Internal Revenue

Service, but their names are unknown, and an inspection of a particular taxpayer’s return is not

likely to reveal understatements or misstatements of income resulting from _____________.

Their names cannot be obtained from _____________.

Accordingly, the requirements for service of the “John Doe” summons have been

satisfied in this proceeding. 

II. Courts Have Approved Prior “John Doe” Summonses in this Investigation

In _____________ similar proceedings, Courts have approved the issuance of “John

Doe” summonses pertaining to United States taxpayers who _____________.

[add description of similar John Doe summonses authorized by courts]

III. CONCLUSION

The summons for which the government seeks authorization meets the requirements of a

“John Doe” summons. Accordingly, the Court should enter an order granting the Internal

Revenue Service leave to serve a “John Doe” summons upon _____________ in substantially

the form as attached to the Exhibits Appendix to the Declaration of Revenue Agent 

_____________ at Tab 1.

_____________________

United States Attorney

By: __________________________

Trial Attorney, Tax Division

U.S. Department of Justice
Exhibit 12, Page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

_________ DISTRICT OF __________

______________ DIVISION

IN THE MATTER OF THE TAX 

LIABILITIES OF:

JOHN DOES, United States taxpayers who, 

during [ tax period and identify group]

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court upon the United States of America’s EX PARTE

PETITION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE JOHN DOE SUMMONS. Based upon a review of the PETITION and

exhibits thereto, the Court has determined that the “John Doe” summons to

_____________________ and its affiliates and subsidiaries relates to the investigation of an

ascertainable group or class of persons, that there is a reasonable basis for believing that such

group or class of persons may fail or may have failed to comply with any provision of any

internal revenue law, and that the information sought to be obtained from the examination of the

records or testimony (and the identities of the persons with respect to whose liability the

summons is issued) are not readily available from other sources. It is therefore – 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Internal Revenue Service, through Revenue

Agent ________________________ or any other authorized officer or agent, may serve an

Internal Revenue Service “John Doe” summons upon ________________ [and its affiliates and

subsidiaries] in substantially the form as attached to the Exhibits Appendix to the Declaration of

Revenue Agent ___________at Tab 1. A copy of this Order shall be served together with the

summons.
Exhibit 12, Page 2

DONE AND ORDERED this ______ day of ___________________, _____.

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to:

_____________________

Trial Attorney, Tax Division

U.S. Department of Justice

____________________

United States Attorney
Exhibit 13, Page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

_________ DISTRICT OF __________

______________ DIVISION

IN THE MATTER OF THE TAX 

LIABILITIES OF:

JOHN DOES, United States taxpayers who, 

during [ tax period and identify group]

NOTICE OF FILING EX PARTE PETITION 

FOR LEAVE TO SERVE “JOHN DOE” SUMMONS

The United States of America notifies the Court that it has commenced this ex parte

proceeding pursuant to Section 7609(f) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.), for leave to

serve an Internal Revenue Service “John Doe” summons upon _______________________. 

Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7609(h), the determination to be made by the Court “shall be made ex

parte and shall be made solely on the petition and supporting affidavits.” Thus, the pleadings

filed in this proceeding will not be served upon any person or entity and no other filings are

permitted from other persons or entities. Accordingly, this matter is ripe for the Court’s

consideration. The United States requests that the Court review the Petition and supporting

documents and enter the proposed Order at the Court’s earliest opportunity.

_____________________

United States Attorney

By: __________________________

Trial Attorney, Tax Division

U.S. Department of Justice