The District Courts which have specifically considered a Bank's entitlement to reimbursement for the expenses of compliance with an IRS summons have reached varying conclusions on the issue. Compare United States v. Farmers & Merchants Bank, 397 F.Supp. 418 (C.D.Cal.1975); United States v. Friedman, 388 F.Supp. 963 (W.D.Pa.1975), modified, 532 F.2d 928 (3d Cir. 1976); United States v. Northwest Pennsylvania Bank & Trust Co., 355 F.Supp. 607 (W.D.Pa.1973); United States v. First National Bank, 173 F.Supp. 716 (W.D.Ark.1959), (granting some type of relief to the banks); with United States v. Mellon Bank, 410 F.Supp. 1065 (W.D.Pa.1976); United States v. Bremicker, 365 F.Supp. 701 (D.Minn.1973), and United States v. Jones, 351 F.Supp. 132 (M.D.Ala.1972), (denying relief to the banks). However, of the district court cases granting relief to banks, not all granted the relief of reimbursement for compliance expenditures.
Where the recipient of a subpoena duces tecum or summons is a bank, courts have been reluctant to condition compliance with the subpoena or summons on the reimbursement of the expenses incurred or expected to be incurred. United States v. Continental Bank & Trust Co., 503 F.2d 45, 48 (10th Cir.1974); United States v. Mellon Bank, N.A., 410 F.Supp. 1065, 1069 (W.D.Pa.1976); United States v. Bremicker, 365 F.Supp. 701, 703 (D.Minn.1973). But cf. Fox v. House, 29 F.Supp. 673, 677 (E.D.Okla.1939).