Opinion ID: 186229
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Scope of the Summons

Text: 26 Judicial Watch also argues the summons, even as modified, is excessive and overbroad because of the number of years covered and the number of documents sought. Drawing upon the declaration of former IRS Commissioner Donald Alexander, Judicial Watch claims the scope of the documents and information requested is unheard of and cannot be explained by any legitimate tax enforcement objective. The IRS argues in response that the modified summons is not overbroad because it clearly advised Judicial Watch what was required of it and sought documents that clearly shed light on the various issues under investigation in the audit. We review for abuse of discretion the district court's determination the summons was not overbroad. See Rogers Transp., Inc. v. Stern, 763 F.2d 165, 167 n. 2 (3d Cir.1985); United States v. Malnik, 489 F.2d 682, 686 n. 4 (5th Cir.1974); United States v. Ruggeiro, 425 F.2d 1069, 1071 (9th Cir.1970) (per curiam). 27 Although the IRS seeks records spanning a number of years and regarding a number of subjects, see p. 5 n. above, the summons is not overbroad. Section 7602 grants broad and expansive authority to the IRS to summon documents from taxpayers, United States v. Bichara, 826 F.2d 1037, 1039 (11th Cir.1987), provided the documents may be relevant or material to the inquiry of the IRS, United States v. Arthur Young & Co., 465 U.S. 805, 814, 104 S.Ct. 1495, 1500, 79 L.Ed.2d 826 (1984) (use of `may be' reflects Congress's express intention to allow the IRS to obtain items of even potential relevance to an ongoing investigation) (emphasis in original). The relevance threshold is a low one, and the Government need show only that inspection of the desired records `might throw light' upon the correctness of the taxpayer's return and liabilities. Kis, 658 F.2d at 537 (quoting United States v. Turner, 480 F.2d 272, 279 (7th Cir.1973)). Here, each type of document sought throw[s] light upon whether Judicial Watch is entitled to its tax-exemption. In particular, the documents are relevant to whether Judicial Watch: is entitled to tax-exempt status either as a private foundation or as a public interest law firm; provides a private benefit either to Larry Klayman or to his law firm; or earns unrelated business income upon which it must pay taxes — either from its relationship with Larry Klayman and Associates or from its sale of merchandise over the internet. 28 That the records sought are extensive is not material so long as the records are relevant to the matters at issue in the audit. United States v. Luther, 481 F.2d 429, 433 (9th Cir.1973); see Spell, 907 F.2d at 39 (rejecting taxpayer's claim summons posed burden of significant proportions where summoned records were relevant to legitimate purpose of determining the correctness of his tax returns). Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding the summons was not overbroad.