White v. United States

4 Citing cases

  1. Estate of Millikin v. Commissioner

    106 F.3d 1263 (6th Cir. 1997)

    The majority of circuits faced with the determination of which sovereign's law governs federal deductibility of administration expenses have acknowledged the importance of state law, but have held that federal regulations are controlling. See Estate of Love v. Commissioner, 923 F.2d 335 (4th Cir. 1991); United States v. White, 853 F.2d 107 (2d Cir. 1988), cert. granted, 489 U.S. 501 (1989), cert. dismissed, 493 U.S. 5 (1989); Marcus v. DeWitt, 704 F.2d 1227 (11th Cir. 1983); Hibernia Bank v. United States, 581 F.2d 741 (9th Cir. 1978); Estate of Smith v. Commissioner, 510 F.2d 479 (2d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Lowe v. Commissioner, 423 U.S. 827 (1975); Pitner v. United States, 388 F.2d 651 (5th Cir. 1967).

  2. PAA Management, Ltd. v. United States

    962 F.2d 212 (2d Cir. 1992)   Cited 28 times
    Rejecting a similar argument with regard to issuance of a final partnership administrative adjustment which the court stated was analogous to a deficiency notice for an individual

    ed States v. Stuart, 489 U.S. 353, 360, 109 S.Ct. 1183, 1188, 103 L.Ed.2d 388 (1989) (citing Powell, 379 U.S. at 58, 85 S.Ct. at 255); see also Reisman, 375 U.S. at 449, 84 S.Ct. at 513 (use of summons power for the purpose of obtaining evidence for use in criminal prosecution, or in breach of attorney-client privilege, also improper). Likewise, in Arthur Young, the Court noted that the use of the phrase "may be relevant" in section 7602 "reflects Congress' express intention to allow the IRS to obtain items of even potential relevance to an ongoing investigation. . . . As a tool of discovery, the ยง 7602 summons is critical to the investigative and enforcement functions of the IRS . . . [and] the Service therefore should not be required to establish that the documents it seeks are actually relevant in any technical, evidentiary sense." Arthur Young, 465 U.S. at 814, 104 S.Ct. at 1501 (citation omitted); see also United States v. White, 853 F.2d 107, 112 (2d Cir. 1988), cert. dismissed, 493 U.S. 5, 110 S.Ct. 273, 107 L.Ed.2d 6 (1989). As a corollary to its broad view of the IRS's summons authority under section 7602, the Court has emphasized that in general, the "[summons] authority should be upheld absent express statutory prohibition or substantial countervailing policies," Euge, 444 U.S. at 711, 100 S.Ct. at 878 (emphasis added), and should not be circumscribed "absent unambiguous directions from Congress," United States v. Bisceglia, 420 U.S. 141, 150, 95 S.Ct. 915, 921, 43 L.Ed.2d 88 (1975) (citations omitted); see also Tiffany Fine Arts, Inc. v. United States, 469 U.S. 310, 318, 105 S.Ct. 725, 729, 83 L.Ed.2d 678 (1985).

  3. Columbus Surgical Services, Inc. v. U.S.

    885 F. Supp. 1050 (S.D. Ohio 1994)   Cited 1 times

    Although the Court is, by statute, directly interposed between the Service and the taxpayer in order to avoid an abuse of the Service's investigative powers, the taxpayers' burden has been deliberately set at a high level in order to insure that the vast majority of summons enforcement proceedings are conducted expeditiously. For the same reason, the Service need only show that some legitimate purpose exists for the issuance of the summons, and not that there is probable cause to believe that the information requested will lead to the discovery of tax deficiencies. United States v. White, 853 F.2d 107 (2d Cir. 1988), cert. dismissed, 493 U.S. 5, 110 S.Ct. 273, 107 L.Ed.2d 6 (1989). The issuance of summonses is a critical discovery tool to permit the Service to investigate potential violations of the tax laws, and the breadth of the relevancy test, requiring proof only of some legitimate purpose, would be thwarted if every taxpayer asserting a claim of harassment or bad faith could delay the enforcement of a summons and obtain discovery and a trial on that claim.

  4. U.S. v. Moseley

    832 F. Supp. 56 (W.D.N.Y. 1993)   Cited 4 times

    Once the IRS's prima facie showing has been met, the burden of showing why enforcement of the summons should not proceed rests with the party summoned. United States v. White, 853 F.2d 107, 111 (2d Cir. 1988), cert. granted, 489 U.S. 1051, 109 S.Ct. 1309, 103 L.Ed.2d 578 cert. dismissed, 493 U.S. 5, 110 S.Ct. 273, 107 L.Ed.2d 6 (1989). The IRS's burden is minimal and its prima facie case for enforcement can be established by the declarations of an IRS agent submitted in support of the Government's position. United States v. Saunders, 951 F.2d 1065, 1067 (9th Cir. 1991); St. German of Alaska Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church v. United States, 840 F.2d 1087, 1092 (2d Cir. 1988).