U.S. v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 72-3029
Decision Date | 08 September 1975 |
Docket Number | No. 72-3029,72-3029 |
Citation | 518 F.2d 747 |
Parties | 75-2 USTC P 9705 UNITED STATES of America and Albert J. Valentas, Internal Revenue Agent, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Anthony J. P. Farris, U. S. Atty., James R. Gough, Asst. U. S. Atty., Houston, Tex., Scott P. Crampton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Meyer Rothwacks, Mary J. McGinn, Charles E. Anderson, Gilbert E. Andrews, Crombie J. D. Garrett, Robert E. Lindsay, Attys., Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Walter B. Morgan, Robert G. Standlee, Houston, Tex., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Before GEWIN and MORGAN, Circuit Judges, and GORDON, District Judge.
The Supreme Court of the United States on April 28, 1975 vacated the judgment of this court in the case of United States v. Humble Oil and Refining Company, 488 F.2d 953 (5th Cir. 1974) and remanded the case for further consideration in light of United States v. Bisceglia, 420 U.S. 141, 95 S.Ct. 915, 43 L.Ed.2d 88 (1975).
We have carefully considered Bisceglia and have concluded that it does not require a reversal of our decision in this case. Both cases involve the enforceability of a "John Doe" summons issued by the Internal Revenue Service. While the Bisceglia Court held the "John Doe" summons before it to be enforceable, we decline to construe that holding as a blanket endorsement of the use of "John Doe" summonses in every situation without reference either to the purpose of the summons or to the factual circumstances which underlie its issuance.
At issue in Bisceglia was the enforceability of a "John Doe" summons issued by the IRS to a bank. The impetus behind the issuance of the summons was the deposit with the bank of some 400 badly deteriorated one hundred dollar bills by an unknown bank customer. This extraordinary transaction gave rise to a strong suspicion of unpaid taxes. An agent was assigned to investigate, and the issuance of the summons constituted the first step in the investigative process.
In the case now before us the IRS issued a "John Doe" summons in order to discover the identities of all lessors of mineral leases surrendered by Humble Oil in the calendar year 1970. The information sought did not relate to a specific, extraordinary transaction as in Bisceglia. Nor were there any factually demonstrable grounds...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
US v. An Article of Drug Neo-Terramycin
... ... Montana Power Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 608 F.2d 334, 347 (9th Cir. 1979) ... ...
-
U.S. v. Wyatt
... ... 1980), United States v. Wright Motor Co., Inc., 536 F.2d 1090 (5th Cir.) rehearing denied, 542 F.2d ... See, e. g., United States v. Humble Oil and Refining Co., 488 F.2d 953, 959 (5th Cir. 1974), ... terms of relevancy and overbreadth and the record before us, we conclude that (i) the IRS met its Powell burden of ... ...
-
United States v. Ladd
... ... 1974); United States v. Dauphin Deposit Trust Co., 385 F.2d 129, 130 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 390 U.S ... United States v. Humble" Oil & Refining Co., 518 F.2d 747 (5th Cir. 1975) ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Smithkline Corp. v. Staats
... ... 1979) (same); United States v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 488 F.2d 953, 954 (5th Cir. 1974) ... is whether the access-to-records provisions now before us can reasonably be read to permit GAO's present demand. We ... ...