Opinion ID: 3065476
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Entry of the Enforcement Order

Text: The Brights first assert that the district court erred in granting the enforcement order. They advance two parallel contentions. As a matter of procedure, they argue that the district 3142 UNITED STATES v. BRIGHT court erred by issuing a “blanket denial” of their assertion of a Fifth Amendment privilege as to the production of all responsive documents. As a matter of substance, they argue that the district court erred by finding that the production of records concerning offshore bank accounts had no testimonial significance, foreclosing a privilege claim. We review de novo a district court’s application of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See United States v. Chase, 340 F.3d 978, 981 (9th Cir. 2003) (privileges generally); United States v. Rubio-Topete, 999 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1993) (Fifth Amendment). Whether the existence of documents is a foregone conclusion is a question of fact, which we review for clear error. United States v. Norwood, 420 F.3d 888, 895 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605, 613-14 (1984)). We affirm, although we narrow the scope of the enforcement order to encompass only records whose existence was known to the government at the time the IRS issued the summonses.
Requests [1] “A claim of Fifth Amendment privilege may be asserted if there are ‘substantial hazards of self-incrimination that are real and appreciable, not merely imaginary and unsubstantial,’ that information sought in an IRS summons might be used to establish criminal liability.” United States v. Drollinger, 80 F.3d 389, 392 (9th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (quoting United States v. Rendahl, 746 F.2d 553, 555 (9th Cir. 1984). “ ‘[A] proper application of this standard requires that the Fifth Amendment be raised in response to specific questions propounded by the investigating body.’ ” Id. (quoting United States v. Pierce, 561 F.2d 735, 741 (9th Cir. 1977)); accord United States v. Bodwell, 66 F.3d 1000, 1001 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). The privilege is not limited to oral questioning; an individual may refuse to provide documents to an investigative body if the act of production would be testimoUNITED STATES v. BRIGHT 3143 nial. See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Subpoena, Dated April 18, 2003, 383 F.3d 905, 909 (9th Cir. 2004). The taxpayer bears the burden of showing that testimony or documents are privileged. See United States v. Brown, 918 F.2d 82, 84 (9th Cir.