Opinion ID: 1922352
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the Department of Revenue abuse process or harass the taxpayer in issuing a subpoena for the corporation's records?

Text: The corporation asserts that the department has harassed its officers and Roman Neu for a period exceeding fifteen years and that the challenged subpoena constitutes an abuse of process. This assertion must be considered in the factual context of the case. In 1954 the corporation was required to pay a doomage assessment. In both 1955 and 1956 Roman Neu was required to pay an additional tax assessment. Although Roman Neu died in 1959, the actual size of his estate was not revealed until late 1963 or early 1964, at which time the department began its income tax investigation. It appears that since the date of the service of the subpoena in May, 1966, the department was done nothing to delay the proceedings. In Maniaci v. Marquette University, [8] we adopted the definition of abuse of process in the Restatement of Torts. One who uses a legal process, whether criminal or civil, against another to accomplish a purpose for which it is not designed . . . . [9] There is no evidence whatsoever in this record that the department had any motive in subpoenaing the records other than the investigation of possible tax evasion. There is no abuse of process here. Harass is defined as To cause to endure excessive burdens or anxieties, to fatigue, or to weary by importunity. [10] The record in this case demonstrates that in the mid 1950's the department was justified in investigating the tax payments of both Roman Neu and of the corporation. Since 1964, when this investigation was begun, the Department of Revenue has proceeded against the taxpayer in a reasonable manner. Aside from making the assertion that it is being harassed, appellant is silent as to how the department has placed excessive or worrisome burdens upon it. Appellant cites several cases [11] in which it has been said that this court will protect citizens from the abuses of administrative agencies. That is, of course, correct, but the record before the court at the present time reveals no abuses, no harassment, and no improprieties by the department. Appellant places particular reliance upon the Weeden v. Beloit Case. [12] The case is inapposite; it concerned a specific statutory restriction upon the scope of discovery which was invoked by the lower court. Furthermore, in Weeden the action was begun after the statute of limitations for that type of proceeding had run. Here the department may still proceed against the taxpayer for intentional tax evasion and we find no harassment here.