Source: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50k/legal/related/4191.php
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 17:51:55+00:00

Document:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER sV. FRANK S. ZOLIN, ET AL.
is reported at 832 F.2d 127. The opinion of the panel (Pet. App.
1985, order of the district court denying reconsideration (Pet. App.
invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1).
U.S.C.) are set out in a statutory appendix (App., infra, 1a-2a).
Church of Scientology v. Gerald Armstrong, No. C420 153 (Cal. Super.
millions of dollars to Hubbard in the late 1970's and early 1980's.
enforce the summons. Pet. App. 12a.
an evidentiary hearing, the district court rejected this contention.
sought or an Order of Court is obtained" (id. at 29a).
criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States (see Pet. App.
is no clear indication that future fraud or crime is being planned"
2. The government sought reconsideration of the court's rulings.
make its case for an exception to this court."
which to determine the attorney-client privilege" (Pet. App. 25a-26a).
submitted as part of the materials considered in the April hearings"
3. A panel of the court of appeals affirmed (Pet. App. 11a-24a).
IRS' agreeing to abide by disclosure restrictions" (Pet. App. 19a).
crime-fraud exception is not applicable to the MCCS tapes (Pet. App.
prima facie case of fraud independently of the said communications'"
(Pet. App. 21a, quoting 455 F.2d at 840 (emphasis in original)).
inquiry has been well established by this Court in United States v.
from Congress." Tiffany Fine Arts, Inc. v. United States, 469 U.S.
310, 318 (1985) (quoting United States v. Arthur Young & Co., 465 U.S.
congressional grant of jurisdiction to enforce summonses.
implied for documents produced in compliance with a summons.
in the possession of the IRS.
indisputably reveal that they fall within the crime-fraud exception.
e.g., Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 405-406 (1976).
whether it is subject to the crime-fraud exception.
retard the efficient enforcement of the tax laws.
should be rejected by this Court.
duty "to make inquiries, determinations, and assessments of all taxes"
the Commissioner to make accurate determinations of tax liability.
445-446 (1964); compare ICC v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 485 (1894).
challenged in the enforcement proceeding on "any appropriate ground, "
compels obedience to the terms of the summons.
not permit its process to be abused" (id. at 58 (footnote omitted)).
authorized by Congress. See also United States v. Bisceglia, 420 U.S.
States v. Garden State Nat'l Bank, 607 F.2d 61, 70-71 (3d Cir. 1979).
further role to play in the summons process.
applicable to other taxpayer information in the possession of the IRS.
information relevant to a legitimate IRS inquiry" (United States v.
Arthur Young & Co., 465 U.S. 805, 816 (1984) (emphasis in original)).
manifestly a restriction on the IRS's use of the summoned material.
role of the grand jury; it found only that there was a " substantial"
of the materials would infringe upon the role of the grand jury.
restraint of denying enforcement of the summons was not justified.
jurisdiction to wait and see how the IRS uses the summoned materials.
situation, and therefore the Court did not impose any. See 469 U.S.
achieve its purpose" (United States v. Bisceglia, 420 U.S. at 151).
produced in compliance with a summons. For example, United States v.
coordinated by the Criminal Division of the Justice Department.
other government agencies for purposes of a criminal investigation.
different proceeding. Id. at 455-458. See also United States v.
court could monitor the IRS' use of the summoned documents" (Pet. App.
restriction on the IRS's use of the summoned documents.
Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. at 531)).
which it has specifically approved (Pet. App. 19a; United States v.
under investigation by the Criminal Investigation Division of the IRS.
future (755 F.2d at 480-481).
804 F.2d 1376, 1379 (1986), rev'd en banc, 837 F.2d 1341 (5th Cir.
and supervision of the court enforcing the summons.
disclosure of confidential tax information are quite comprehensive.
determination of the existence, or possible existence, of liability"
under the Code. See generally Church of Scientology v. IRS, No.
extent necessary for investigative purposes (Section 6103(k)(6)).
rules." S. Rep. 94-938, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 347 (1976).
tax administration may not be made without an ex parte court order.
obtained pursuant to a summons.
of material produced in compliance with a summons enforcement order.
remedial powers for the court once the IRS obtains summoned documents"
the dictates of the Tax Anti-Injunction Act.
v. Texas Heart Inst., supra, and overruled it. United States v.
Barrett, 837 F.2d 1341 (1988), petition for cert. pending, No.
investigative efforts of the IRS.
error and emphatically rejected conditional enforcement of summonses.
/22/ This Court should reach the same conclusion.
confidential communications recognized by the common law (see 8 J.
bar the disclosure of all communications between attorney and client.
factfinder, it applies only where necessary to achieve its purpose"
long been recognized is the "crime-fraud exception." See, e.g., 8 J.
communication is not privileged. See Clark v. United States, 289 U.S.
Weinstein's Evidence Paragraph 503(d)(1)(01) (1988); S. Stone and R.
Liebman, Testimonial Privileges Section 1.65 (1983 & Supp. 1987).
and administration of justice" (Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S.
attorney-client privilege set forth in Fisher v. United States, supra.
that the affidavit should be rejected as untimely (see Pet. App.
not be invoked (see Pet. App. 2a, 23a, citing United States v.
privilege made in opposition to the enforcement of IRS summonses.
F.2d 1334, 1337, 1339 (9th Cir. 1977).
Trust Co. v. Gomez, 100 F.R.D. 273, 277 (S.D.N.Y. 1983).
evidence rule has been uniformly rejected. See generally 2 J.
As this Court's recent decision in Bourjaily v. United States, No.
(Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E)) is no longer good law in modern practice.
determinations of admissiblity (see Fed. R. Evid. 104, 1101(d)(1)).
evidence. See Bourjaily, slip op. 7-8; see also United States v.
Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 172-177 (1974).
shielded from disclosure on grounds of attorney-client privilege.
Partial reconsideration of Interim Ruling at 11.
United States v. Barrett, 837 F.2d 1341 (1988), petition for cert.
pending, No. 87-1705. See pages 38-40, infra.
government. See pages 5-6 & note 3, supra.
order was intended to be a disposition on the merits (Br. in Opp. App.
Section 6103. United States v. Stuckey, 646 F.2d 1369, 1377 (9th Cir.
United States v. Chemical Bank, 593 F.2d 451, 456-457 (2d Cir. 1979).
/11/ At the hearing the court elaborated on this finding (J.A.
enforcement proceeding (Pet. App. 19a (quoting United States v.
purpose reflecting on the good faith of the particular investigation"
enforcement action is simply part of the Powell "good faith" inquiry.
would require continued supervision of the IRS investigation.
Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), Pub. L. No.
institution, has abandoned the pursuit of a civil tax investigation.
purpose for the issuance of a summons.
Corp., 739 F.2d 1275, 1277 (7th Cir. 1984). See also United States v.
prevent IRS from using summoned material).
general standards may well be a complex one.
unpublished district court decision, Vardax Consultants (Canada), Inc.
v. United States, No. C86-1206 (W.D. Wash. 1987), appeal pending, No.
approval by the court (Section 6103(i)(4)).
Section 6103 because the two sections were enacted contemporaneously.
and to aid in the enforcement of the confidentiality rules" (S. Rep.
the IRS's access to information in the first place.
/21/ See, e.g., Zimmer v. Connett, 640 F.2d 208, 210 (9th Cir.
taxpayers' books); Black v. United States, 534 F.2d 524, 527 (2d Cir.
1976); Lewis v. Sandler, 498 F.2d 395, 397 (4th Cir. 1974); Koin v.
from using evidence to make tax assessments).
guarantee that such a disclosure would not take place in the future.
enacted by Congress (769 F.2d at 1448).
conversations was to effectuate a plan of fraud" (455 F.2d at 840).
privilege should be rejected (id. at 840-841).
rules, rather than by the Federal Rules of Evidence. See Fed. R.
justice" (United States v. King, 536 F. Supp. at 262)).

References: v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 

v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.