Court Opinion

ID: 9529457
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:50:59.212829+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:47.264245
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
Arterburn, J.
Relator contends that since the response was not verified it is entitled automatically to the writ of mandate out of this Court on the authority of State ex rel. Burk V. Judge of Superior Court of Madison County No. 2 (1967), 248 Ind. 394, 229 N. E. 2d 639. I do not believe the rule in that case should be carried so far as to require this Court to close its eyes to that which in my opinion would be ordering an unlawful act. In the Burk case supra no plain illegality was involved. We would have had to search the record to determine the merits.
There is no need to search the record in the case before us. The illegality is clear on its face. The statute (Burns’ § 64-1705, Supp. 1967) under which the State Board of Tax Commissioners asks that the Court be forced to act “forthwith” in issuing a subpoena duces tecum does not provide for any hearing according to the Attorney General’s position. If this is the position of the State, then the act is unconstitutional. It appears that the State Board of Tax Commissioners is inquiring into the private business records of the taxpayer. The request is quite broad. It includes:
(a) Records of the last physical inventory taken prior to March 1, 1966.
(b) All purchase and sales invoices between certain dates.
*588(c) General ledger, general journal, purchase journál and sales journal between certain dates.
(d) A copy of the federal income tax return of the taxpayer for 1965.
To me, at least, the last item is of no concern of the State, since the request by the State Board of Tax Commissioners concerned “tangible” property only.
It seems to me that there has to be some area of discretion given the trial court where a demand as broad as that in this case is made upon the taxpayer. I do not like to see tax officials have unlimited power to pry into everybody’s papers and private business. I think a taxpayer has some rights — at least rights as important as some of the communists and criminals have in our courts against self-incrimination. The United States Supreme Court says you cannot compel a communist to register or make an application to register because it might incriminate him. A police officer has no right to ask a defendant any questions relative to the crime if he is a prime suspect until he gets an attorney and the attorney is present, and he has a right to refuse. More recently, it has held that a public employee cannot be compelled to take a loyalty oath because it might incriminate him. I do not agree with such extreme interpretations of the Constitution. But if it is the law, I think the law abiding taxpayer has at least as high a right against an inquiry by a tax official into his private affairs, which inquiry is as broad as this before us.
Finally, I feel this is a matter which is appealable on the issue of the discretion of the trial court, if it is improperly exercised and not a matter for an original action in this Court. I would deny the writ, since the respondent trial court had a hearing and exercised its discretion, which may be reviewable on appeal.
Mote, J., concurs in this opinion.
Note. — Reported in 230 N. E. 2d 761.