Opinion ID: 3028638
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Teeple's Act of Production Claim

Text: The crux of Teeple's argument on appeal concerns the potential incrimination that will result if he is forced to turn over the requested documents. The act of producing the documents, he believes, could reasonably be used against him in a criminal prosecution. He points to the government's refusal to grant him immunity, and a letter sent by the IRS stating [p]lease contact us immediately, or we may have to take the following actions: 1. Summon you to bring us your books and records. 2. Bring criminal proceedings which may include a fine, imprisonment, or both if you willfully fail to file a tax return. The government, however, maintains that Teeple's case is purely a civil matter. There has been no criminal referral made within the IRS regarding his case, and the government represents the criminal division of the IRS is not involved in this case. We suspect Teeple's fear of prosecution is probably more real than remote given his belief that money he has earned from the common law practice of chiropractic is not taxable income. See Ueckert v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 721 F.2d 248, 250 (8th Cir. 1983) (observing that the Fifth Amendment privilege applies only where the danger of self-incrimination is real and appreciable, not remote and speculative). Although the government represents that the criminal division of the IRS is not involved, little comfort can be found in this representation. Teeple is a taxprotestor. Presented with the question whether the government will prosecute him for willful failure to file an income tax return (or some other tax crime), we are constrained to answer perhaps. He is somewhat more likely to be prosecuted (than others) given his irrational belief, coupled with the considerable time and energy the government has already devoted to this case. Prosecuting him will surely send a message to other would-be tax-protestors, a fact that doubtless has not gone unnoticed by the government. -5- Our decision here, however, does not hinge upon whether Teeple's fear of prosecution is real because we believe his act of producing the documents is insufficiently testimonial. The act of producing the requested documents in this case falls within what the Court in Fisher described as a foregone conclusion. In Fisher, the Court explained that where the existence and location of the papers are a foregone conclusion and the taxpayer adds little or nothing to the sum total of the Government's information by conceding that he in fact has the papers, the Fifth Amendment offers no protection. Id. at 411. The district court's order states Teeple has never explained how his act of production will provide the Government with information . . . , and that [t]he IRS already knows the documents and records exist, that Respondent had them (or controls them), and that they are authentic. Respondent's production of the documents will not add to this knowledge. The district court thus concluded that Teeple's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination would not be violated because his act of producing the documents would add little or nothing to the sum total of the government's information. We agree. At the June 8, 2000, hearing Teeple testified that he possessed the documents requested in the summons; that he had received income during 1996 and 1997, including fees from various HMOs in his chiropractic business; that he had been paid by insurance companies as part of fees he received in his chiropractic business during those years; that he deposited some of the fees in bank accounts; that he was aware of Form 1099s which indicated he had received payments from various businesses during those years and that he received such payments; that he had not filed federal income tax returns in 1996 and 1997; and that he did not believe he was liable to pay federal income tax. See Appellant's App. 9-14. Teeple also testified that he kept books and records—which he called personal accounting ledgers—that demonstrated the amount of money he received from his chiropractic business in 1996 -6- and 1997. Id. at 13. Teeple admitted he brought to court all the books and records that were requested in the summons. Id. at 6. Teeple rejects the comparison to Fisher and contends his case is analogous to Doe and United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000). We disagree. In both cases Teeple favors, the government knew far less about the documents and records it sought than in the present case. See Doe, 465 U.S. at 614 n.13; Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 44. We think the government's knowledge of the requested documents in Teeple's case is more akin to the government's knowledge in Fisher, not Doe or Hubbell. Because Teeple has admitted to the existence, possession and location of the documents requested by the IRS, the only remaining question is whether those documents can be authenticated without reference to his act of production. We believe they can be. Teeple has already admitted, through his own oral testimony (not through the act of producing), that he kept personal accounting ledgers for 1996 and 1997. These ledgers can be authenticated by handwriting experts, see United States v. Fishman, 726 F.2d 125, 127 (4th Cir. 1983), or by Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(4), see United States v. Rue, 819 F.2d 1488, 1494 (8th Cir. 1987) (concluding that the authenticity of patient cards can be established independently, citing Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(4)).