United States v. Prudden

Decision Date26 June 1970
Docket NumberNo. 28140.,28140.
Citation424 F.2d 1021
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Horton R. PRUDDEN, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Samuel S. Forman, Asst. U. S. Atty., Jacksonville, Fla., Johnnie M. Walters, Asst. Atty. Gen., Joseph M. Howard, John M. Brant, Attys., Tax Div., U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Edward F. Boardman, U. S. Atty., John L. Briggs, U. S. Atty., Middle District of Florida, for plaintiff-appellant.

C. Harris Dittmar, Chester Bedell, Charles P. Pillans, Jacksonville, Fla., for defendant-appellee; Bedell, Bedell, Dittmar, Smith & Zehmer, Jacksonville, Fla., of counsel.

Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and COLEMAN and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

Rehearing Denied and Rehearing En Banc Denied June 26, 1970.

CLARK, Circuit Judge:

Horton R. Prudden was indicted on seventeen counts of evading taxes due the United States. On taxpayer's motion made prior to trial, the court below in a blanket order suppressed all statements made and all corporate and personal documents furnished by Prudden to a special agent of the Internal Revenue Service, together with all evidence obtained through or as a result of such statements or documentary evidence. Suppression was based on a finding that the Internal Revenue Service had obtained such statements and documents by engaging in a deliberate scheme to deceive Prudden in order to prevent his understanding that an investigation originally commenced by a revenue agent had materially altered at the time the special agent entered the case.1 The United States chose to appeal the suppression order rather than to proceed to trial without the evidence thus suppressed. Since the record does not clearly and convincingly demonstrate a deliberate scheme to deceive and we reject the taxpayer's contention that he was entitled to Miranda warnings, we reverse.

The following facts are either undisputed or are stated most favorably to the taxpayer. On May 10, 1963, certain returns of The Florida Corporation of America (FCA) and its subsidiaries were assigned to Revenue Agent Lexow for the purpose of determining the correctness of the tax reported. At this time Lexow had been with the Internal Revenue Service about one year — he was still in training and was not a full-grade agent. Prudden was 50 years of age, a law school graduate and then employed as a security analyst for a member firm of the New York Stock Exchange. After learning that FCA was to be examined, Prudden telephoned Lexow at the Palm Beach office of the Internal Revenue Service from his home in Connecticut, stating that he was a director of FCA. He inquired if Lexow's examination was to cover FCA alone or its subsidiaries also and further asked if the examination was routine. Lexow replied that the examination would cover both FCA and its subsidiaries and that it was not routine; that the returns had been selected in Jacksonville to be examined and had been assigned to Lexow from there.

The examination actually commenced on May 31 when Lexow contacted Mrs. Anne G. Smith, who was indicated on the returns to be the president of these corporations.2 All of Lexow's subsequent examinations were made under the supervision of Mrs. Smith either with or without Prudden present. Prudden and Mrs. Smith were cooperative with Agent Lexow, furnishing him most of the documents he wished to examine and making copies for him at his request. By June 17 Lexow's examinations had disclosed what he considered to be possible indications of fraud. It appeared to Lexow that a Nassau based corporation, Research and Development, Ltd., might be skimming profits off one of FCA's subsidiaries. He further noted there was no indication as required on the return, that the Bahamian and American corporations were related. Lexow had also discovered information concerning a sale of stock which gave the appearance of having produced a large capital gain, but had been reported as a loss. By this time Lexow's investigation had also broadened to cover Prudden's personal returns. Lexow made no report of these suspicions to his superiors at this juncture because he wanted to pursue the examination further.

A number of times during Lexow's audit Prudden told him that if they found anything wrong, he, Prudden, wished that Lexow would let him know so that it could be corrected and any tax due could be paid. Prudden was particularly insistent that Lexow advise him on how to handle several details of a particular stock sale. Lexow testified that it was possible that he did tell Prudden that when all the facts were known to him he would advise Prudden how a 52,000 dollar escrow item connected with the stock sale should be handled, but Prudden admits he never got this advice.

When a revenue agent discovers indicia of fraud in the course of an examination, the routine procedure requires that he refer a complete report of his findings to the Intelligence Division of the revenue service, which then determines whether it will assign a special agent to take charge of the case. On June 27, while Lexow's examination was continuing, he had his first discussions with other persons in his office about the possibility of referring the case to the Intelligence Division. Lexow began to write his referral report on July 3 and completed it on July 15. On July 9 he wrote Prudden requesting bank statements and canceled checks of Research and Development, Ltd., urging him to forward these documents to Lexow in order to save time and enable Lexow to proceed with his examination of FCA and its subsidiaries. He also complimented Prudden on his cooperation. A copy of this letter is set out in the margin.3 It was not shown that Prudden ever furnished the documents requested to Lexow or his successors.

Lexow did not meet with Prudden or Mrs. Smith after July 9. On August 14, Lexow received advice from the Intelligence Division that it had decided to make a full-scale investigation. On August 29, after a telephone conversation with Mrs. Smith indicated that Prudden wanted a written request, Lexow wrote Prudden requesting that copies be made available to him of papers previously furnished but inadvertently left in the corporation's office. He also asked for a schedule which computed losses incurred from acts of an unfaithful employee. In this letter Lexow advised Prudden that he was being transferred at his own request, to an assignment that would permit him to return to college, and that Agent Lewis E. Stanley was to become the agent on the case. Lexow's letter requested Prudden to continue to cooperate with Agent Stanley. A copy of this letter is set out in the margin.4 On the date of this letter Lexow knew that Special Agent Edward M. Cohen was then in charge of the Prudden investigation, but his name was not mentioned to Prudden or Mrs. Smith.5

In several instances, Prudden refused to give Lexow requested documents which Prudden felt were outside the proper scope of Lexow's examination. Lexow once told Prudden that the Internal Revenue Service would never leave him alone until he produced some records for Research and Development, Ltd. Prudden took the position that such records did not have to be produced and, as stated, he never produced them. On one occasion when Lexow raised a question as to constructive ownership with Prudden, Prudden told Lexow not to attempt to tell him about the rules of constructive ownership, that that subject had been his specialty in law school and he had studied it for three years. On several occasions Prudden told Lexow that he, Lexow, was simply on a fishing expedition — trying only to gather facts that would support Lexow's preconceived conclusions. In his final letter to Lexow, Prudden stated that he was left with the impression that items were being singled out of context in order to attack his intentions as unfair and not forthright. He pointed out that he had frequently asked for the Internal Revenue Service's views but had never received a stable answer of any kind. He further offered to review with Agent Stanley "whatever context he may wish to go over," expressly including the summary of losses sustained due to activities of the unfaithful employee, which Lexow had previously requested.

On September 13, 1963, Revenue Agent Lewis E. Stanley wrote Prudden confirming a meeting on October 1, 1963 in Palm Beach. Although the letter did not mention him, Special Agent Cohen intended to and did meet with Prudden and Stanley. When Cohen and Stanley opened the meeting they identified themselves to Prudden as a special agent and a revenue agent respectively, and showed him their written credentials, which he examined. Cohen's credentials plainly carried the legend "Intelligence Division". Prudden testified that he did not know the significance of Cohen's designation as a special agent. They informed Prudden that they were there to make an audit and examination of his returns, the returns of his three sons and the returns of FCA and its eight subsidiaries. He was also told that the examination would include any other corporation or gift tax returns that he had filed. Neither Stanley nor Cohen ever stated to Prudden that a criminal investigation was being conducted or that the investigation they were making was being made to determine the possibility of fraud. Prudden was never given any warning nor was he ever advised that he had a right to remain silent or that any information furnished by him could be used against him in any subsequent proceedings. All actions and procedures followed by Stanley and Cohen were in accord with what was then the Internal Revenue Service's standard procedure in such cases.

On December 21, 1964, Revenue Agent Stanley and Special Agent Cohen interviewed Prudden at the Internal Revenue Service Intelligence Division office. Prudden answered the questions asked him but refused to allow the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
101 cases
  • Com. v. Morrison
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • March 21, 1980
    ...States v. Tonahill, 430 F.2d 1042 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 943, 91 S.Ct. 242, 27 L.Ed.2d 247 (1970); United States v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021 (5th Cir.), cert. denied 400 U.S. 831, 91 S.Ct. 62, 27 L.Ed.2d 62 (1970); Spahr v. United States, 409 F.2d 1303 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 39......
  • Commonwealth v. Morrison
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • March 21, 1980
    ...... a reasonable expectation of privacy. United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 53 L.Ed.2d 538. (1977); Katz v. United States, ...denied, 400. U.S. 943, 91 S.Ct. 242, 27 L.Ed.2d 247 (1970); United. States v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021 (5th Cir.), cert. denied 400 U.S. 831, 91 S.Ct. 62, 27 L.Ed.2d 62 (1970);. Spahr ......
  • U.S. v. Wuagneux
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • August 23, 1982
    ...showing must be by clear and convincing evidence. United States v. Dawson, 486 F.2d 1326, 1329 (5th Cir. 1973); United States v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032-33 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 831, 91 S.Ct. 62, 27 L.Ed.2d 62 (1970). See also United States v. Goss, 650 F.2d 1336, 1348-49 ......
  • U.S. v. Brunson
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • March 24, 1977
    ...supra, 384 U.S. at 477-78, 86 S.Ct. 1602; United States v. Presley, 478 F.2d 163, 169 (5th Cir. 1973), citing United States v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1025-31 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 831, 91 S.Ct. 62, 27 L.Ed.2d 62 14 We think these facts suffice to distinguish the instant case f......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Evidence handed to the IRS criminal division on a "civil" platter: constitutional infringements on taxpayers.
    • United States
    • Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 91 No. 3, March 2001
    • March 22, 2001
    ...United States v. Marra, 481 F. 2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1973); United States v. Lehman, 468 F.2d 93 (7th Cir. 1972); United States v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied 400 U.S. 831 (1970); United States v. Tonahill, 430 F.2d 1042 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 943 (1970......
  • Parallel Proceedings
    • United States
    • State Bar of Georgia Georgia Bar Journal No. 25-4, February 2020
    • Invalid date
    ...Kordel, 397 U.S. at 11. [3] Id. at 11-12. [4] 550 F.2d 297 (5th Cir. 1977). [5] Tweel, 550 F.2d at 299 (quoting United States v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032 (5th Cir. 1970)). [6] See United States v. Spivey, 861 F.3d 1207, 1213 (11th Cir. 2017) (noting that Tweel applies to vitiate the vol......
  • Tax Fraud Investigations-recent Supreme Court Developments
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 5-9, September 1976
    • Invalid date
    ...(3rd Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1021; United States v. Browney, 421 F.2d 48, 51-52 (4th Cir. 1970); United States v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1027-1031 (5th Cir. 1970); cert. denied, 400 U.S. 831; United States v. Stribling, 437 F.2d 765, 771 (6th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 9......
  • To Deceive or Not to Deceive: Law Enforcement Officers Gain Broader Approval to Use Deceptive Tactics to Obtain Voluntary Consent
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 69-2, January 2018
    • Invalid date
    ...force group's cases are actually forwarded to the CSF. Id. at 1347.105. Id. at 1347-48. 106. Id. at 1348.107. United States v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1033 (5th Cir. 1970).108. United States v. Farley, 607 F.3d 1294, 1330 (11th Cir. 2010). "It does not matter if [law enforcement] deliberate......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT