Opinion ID: 666596
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Statutory Contempt Procedures

Text: 13 His first argument is that the court failed to follow the mandated procedure for contempt hearings set forth in 26 U.S.C. sec. 7604(b). That section states that when any person fails to obey an Internal Revenue Service summons, the government may apply to the judge of the district court ... for an attachment against him as for a contempt. (emphasis added). The statute then details the proper procedures to follow, including: arresting the person; bringing him before the court; then, and not until then, holding a hearing. Berg contends that because the court did not follow these procedures in his case, the contempt order must be invalid. 14 This argument suffers from one fatal flaw. The government did not seek a finding of contempt pursuant to the above discretionary statute; rather, it asked the court to enter an order finding Berg in contempt pursuant to the court's general powers to issue orders or processes ... necessary or appropriate to the enforcement of the internal revenue laws. 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7402(a). Therefore section 7602(b) did not apply to this case and Berg's arguments concerning it are meritless.