GLOBE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., NEIL CHRISTOPHER AND HANS SCHLESINGER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS OFFICERS OF SAID COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
G. M. HUMPHREY, SECRETARY OF TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the district judge's order enforcing the Bureau of Internal Revenue subpoena was correct.
Appellants refused to comply with an IRS subpoena for 1950 tax records, arguing the statute of limitations barred the examination and it violated the …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Statute Of Limitations Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal brings up for review the order of the district judge requiring appellants to comply with a Bureau of Internal Revenue subpoena to produce books and records for the fiscal year 1950. The refusal to comply with the subpoena was based below, and the complaint of the order requiring compliance is based here, upon the ground that the taxes for that year were barred by the statute of limitations, and that, for want of sufficient “allegations of fact to reasonably justify a suspicion of fraud”, the proposed examination would be an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
The appellee, pointing to the statute, Sec. 7602(2) of the Internal Revenue Code, 1954, 26 U.S.C.A. § 7602(2), authorizing the issuance of the subpoena, and cases dealing with the exercise of the power, particularly Falsone v. United States, 5 Cir., 205 F. 2d 734, insists that the allegations in the affidavit of the officer who issued the subpoena were sufficient to support its issuance and that the order enforcing it should be affirmed.
We agree. Indeed we think: that the insistence of the appellant to the contrary proceeds from a misconception of the nature of the subpoena power at issue here and of the conditions requisite to its exercise.
The action of the district judge in ordering the subpoena enforced was right. His order is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48 (U.S. 1964)
-
Boren v. Tucker, 239 F.2d 767 (9th Cir. 1956)
-
Foster v. United States, 265 F.2d 183 (2d Cir. 1959)
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Falsone v. United States, 205 F.2d 734 (5th Cir. 1953)