Opinion ID: 482058
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Restrictions on IRS Disclosure of the Summoned Documents

Text: 28 The district court ordered that the documents produced in response to the summons shall not be delivered to any other government agency by the IRS unless criminal tax prosecution is sought or an Order of Court is obtained. We review the district court's order for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 666 F.2d 364, 368 (9th Cir.1982). 29 The Government argues that the district court's order conflicts with the disclosure provisions of 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6103. Those provisions, the Government suggests, are the exclusive limitations upon IRS disclosure of return information. In addition, the Government argues that the order represents an improper attempt to enjoin the IRS from obeying a duly enacted federal law. 30 We recently rejected this argument in Author Services, and held that a district court's order restricting the IRS' ability to disclose summoned materials to other governmental agencies, [r]ather than being an abuse of discretion, ... [could] be a wise exercise of control. Author Services, 804 F.2d at 1526. The district court's order in this case allows the court to monitor the IRS' use of the summoned documents. This is an appropriate exercise of the district court's discretion: 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. Powell, 379 U.S. at 58, 85 S.Ct. at 255. See S.E.C. v. ESM Government Securities, Inc., 645 F.2d 310, 316-17 (5th Cir.1981). A district court may, when appropriate, condition enforcement of a summons on the IRS' agreeing to abide by disclosure restrictions. Author Services, 804 F.2d at 1525 (citing United States v. Texas Heart Institute, 755 F.2d 469, 481 (5th Cir.1985)). 31 The Intervenors also argue that the district court's order violates 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7421(a) (the Anti-Injunction Act), because it has the effect of enjoining the IRS from disclosing the summoned tax information. We reject the argument for the reasons stated in Author Services, 804 F.2d at 1526.