But once the executive or administrative decision has been made to investigate any taxpayer's accounts, the question is not whether that decision to investigate was sound but only whether the documents sought are reasonably likely to relate to such investigation. In United States ex rel. Sathre v. Third Northwestern National Bank, D.C. Minn. 1952, 102 F. Supp. 879, Judge Nordbye, in one of the most thorough opinions on this point, said at page 881: "And the Government need not establish that the taxpayer was guilty of fraud in his tax return in order to establish its right to inspect records of the kind sought here under the statute.

Adams v. F.T.C., 296 F.2d 861, 867 (8th Cir. 1961), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 864, 82 S.Ct. 1029, 8 L.Ed.2d 83 (1962), quoted with approval United States v. Giordano, 419 F.2d 564 569 (8th Cir. 1969). Although statements can be found that a district court may refuse to enforce a summons which is excessively burdensome, United States v. Davey, 543 F.2d 996, 1000 (2d Cir. 1976), or "out of proportion to the end sought," United States v. Harrington, 388 F.2d 520, 523 (2d Cir. 1968), the only case cited by Dayton where enforcement was refused because of disproportion between the economic burden on the corporation summoned and the expected benefit to IRS was United States v. Third Northwestern Nat. Bank, 102 F. Supp. 879 (D.Minn. 1952). The summons was directed to a bank.

Perhaps a third person might show that an investigation was unnecessary as to him because he had no material relating to the taxpayer's liability, but here the issue is more likely to arise in resisting enforcement of a summons and the ground for relief more likely to be stated in terms of the burdensomeness of the demand. See United States ex rel. Sathre v. Third Northwestern Nat'l Bank, 102 F. Supp. 879 (D.Minn. 1952); Foster v. United States, 265 F.2d 183, 187 n. 2 (2d Cir., 1959); 60 Mich.L.Rev. 187, 204-05 (1961). It may also be drawn from the remarks of sponsors of the provision that Congress anticipated that its purpose of ending such "frivolous" investigations would be accomplished primarily through administrative control resulting from the requirement that the Secretary notify the taxpayer in writing of the necessity for repeating the inquiry — although it should be added that there is nothing to indicate an intention to exclude judicial intervention if administrative control should fail. What is now Section 7605(b) of Title 26 first appeared as Section 1308 of the Revenue Bill of 1921.

In Application of Levine, D.C., 149 F. Supp. 642, 643, affirmed 2 Cir., 243 F.2d 175, Judge Kaufman said: "The question of probable cause for such investigations comes into play when a third party is requested to produce records relating to the taxpayer under investigation. See e.g. Falsone v. United States, 5 Cir., 205 F.2d 734, certiorari denied 1953, 346 U.S. 864, 74 S.Ct. 103, 98 L.Ed. 375; United States ex rel. Sathre v. Third Northwestern National Bank, D.C.D. Minn., 102 F. Supp. 879, appeal dismissed 8 Cir., 1952, 196 F.2d 501." The context makes it plain that by this was meant only that a motion to enforce a subpoena against a third party should show some connection between the respondent and the taxpayer under investigation from which it may be reasonably believed that the respondent may have information relative to the investigation which justifies the burden of compliance.

Appeal from District Court dismissed, on stipulation of parties. 102 F. Supp. 879.

We find no difficulty in disposing of the bank's legal objections to production. The summons power given to the Secretary or his delegate by § 7602 is to be liberally construed in order to fulfill the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code. United States v. Third Northwestern National Bank, 102 F. Supp. 879, 881 (D.Minn. 1952). The records requested are relevant and material to an investigation of the income tax liability of the individuals and companies named in the summons.

3. Respondents' third contention is that enforcement of the summons would constitute an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Although it is true that the Fourth Amendment does protect a corporation from an unreasonable search and seizure, see Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 40 S.Ct. 182, 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920), Fleming v. Montgomery Ward Co., 114 F.2d 384 (7 Cir. 1940), cert. den. 311 U.S. 690, 61 S.Ct. 71, 85 L.Ed. 446 (1940), respondents have not shown that enforcement of the summons in the case at bar would be unreasonable. Respondents do not even contend that the summons is overly broad, sweeping, or indefinite, or that there is no basis for the probable existence of the records. See Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 26 S.Ct. 370, 50 L.Ed. 652 (1906), United States v. First Nat. Bank of Fort Smith, Ark., 173 F. Supp. 716 (W.D.Ark. 1959), and United States ex rel. Sathre v. Third Northwestern Nat. Bank, 102 F. Supp. 879 (D.Minn. 1952), appeal dismissed, 196 F.2d 501 (8 Cir. 1952), where these contentions were made. In the absence of such a showing, the summons per se does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

But even if it were intended to be directed against him individually (and on its face it is), there is no reason why he should not be required to appear, and if he does appear to answer such questions as may be put to him regarding the tax liability of Equality Plastics. It is well settled that the Government has the right to examine third parties with respect to any knowledge they may have bearing on the tax liabilities of a taxpayer under investigation. Stone v. Frandle, D.C.D.Minn., 89 F. Supp. 222; United States ex rel. Sathre v. Third Northwestern National Bank, D.C.D.Minn., 102 F. Supp. 879. "

But even if it were intended to be directed against him individually (and on its face it is), there is no reason why he should not be required to appear, and if he does appear to answer such questions as may be put to him regarding the tax liability of Equality Plastics. It is well settled that the Government has the right to examine third parties with respect to any knowledge they may have bearing on the tax liabilities of a taxpayer under investigation. Stone v. Frandle, D.C.D.Minn., 89 F. Supp. 222; United States ex rel. Sathre v. Third Northwestern National Bank, D.C.D. Minn., 102 F. Supp. 879. The contention that Burr or the corporation are not required to appear because they claim that they do not have the records called for in their possession is merely frivolous. If privilege against self-incrimination is claimed the time to assert such privilege is when questions are asked relating to matters claimed to incriminate.

The Bank asserts no claim that as to it compliance with the summons will impose an undue hardship. See First Nat. Bank of Mobile v. United States, 5 Cir., 1947, 160 F.2d 532; United States ex rel. Sathre v. Third Northwestern Nat. Bank, D.C.Minn., 102 F. Supp. 879, appeal dismissed 8 Cir., 1952, 196 F.2d 501. Its concern, as articulated in its letter of September 9, 1957 to the Internal Revenue Service, is to protect its position vis-a-vis the construction corporation since the latter and the taxpayer expressed opposition to compliance with the summons.