Court Opinion

ID: 9454854
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:02:07.015102+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:21.228025
License: Public Domain

CELEBREZZE, Circuit Judge
(concurring) .
I concur for the reason that the District Judge did not find that the sole purpose of Agent Daguanno’s investigation was to gather evidence for a criminal prosecution. The parties stipulated that agent Daguanno was assigned to investigate one Montgomery’s income tax liability for the years 1961 through 1966. During the course of his investigation he attempted to summon records of Montgomery’s long distance telephone calls. Thus, aside from, but not inconsistent with, the District Court’s finding that agent Daguanno’s investigation was “primarily” criminal in scope, the record reveals that his investigation was also conducted for a civil purpose, namely, to determine Montgomery’s liability for federal income taxes for the abovementioned years.
It is well settled that the § 7602 summons may be used where the I.R.S. investigation has civil as well as criminal objectives. United States v. DiGroso, 405 F.2d 926 (3rd Cir. 1969); Wild v. United States, 362 F.2d 206 (9th Cir. 1966); see Justice v. United States, 365 F.2d 312, 313 (6th Cir. 1966). The United States Supreme Court has held, however, that this summons may not be used where the sole purpose of the I.R.S. investigation is to gather evidence for use in a criminal prosecution, Reisman v. Caplin, 375 U.S. 440, 449, 84 S.Ct. 508, 11 L.Ed.2d 459 (1964); see Boren v. Tucker, 239 F.2d 767 (9th Cir. 1965). In my opinion this was the purpose of the investigation conducted in DiPiazza et al. v. United States, 415 F.2d 99 (1969)1. As I said in my dissenting opinion therein, the record did not disclose that the I.R.S. was conducting an investigation into the Appellants’ civil tax liability. The record in this case, however, does disclose such a purpose. For this reason, the summons against Appellee would have been properly enforceable as “other lawful authority” under § 605 as it stood prior to its amendment by Congress in 1968.
I express no opinion at this time as to the effect of the recent congressional amendments on § 605, preferring to wait until that question is properly before us.

. Decided by this Court today.