Barney v. U.S., 77-1652
| Decision Date | 16 January 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-1652,77-1652 |
| Citation | 568 F.2d 116 |
| Parties | 78-1 USTC P 9237 Kenneth D. BARNEY and Madeline L. Barney, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Charles A. Smith, Special Agent of the Internal Revenue Service, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Kenneth D. Barney, pro se.
Madeline L. Barney, pro se.
David V. Vrooman, U.S. Atty., Sioux Falls, S.D., M. Carr Ferguson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Gilbert E. Andrews, Carleton D. Powell and William A. Whitledge, Attys., Tax Division, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for appellees.
Before LAY, ROSS and WEBSTER, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from an order directing enforcement of an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) summons. In the course of an investigation to determine the income tax liability of Kenneth and Madeline Barney for the year 1975, the IRS issued a summons to Gordon Dretsch, Vice President of Custer County Bank, Custer, South Dakota. The summons required him to appear, give testimony relating to the Barneys' tax liability, and bring specified records and papers pertaining to the Barneys' checking and savings accounts, safety deposit boxes, and loans. Dretsch refused to obey the summons without a court order, and this enforcement proceeding followed.
The Barneys intervened and asserted legal and philosophical arguments against the enforcement of the summons and the imposition of federal income taxes. After a hearing the district court entered a memorandum opinion and ordered that the summons be enforced. It found that the summons was issued for a legitimate purpose, that the items sought were relevant to that purpose, that the information sought was not already in the Commissioner's possession, and that any administrative steps required by the Internal Revenue Code had been followed. The court concluded that the government had made the required prima facie showing and that the Barneys had not established any reason for the district court's not ordering enforcement. The court also considered and rejected the Barneys' philosophical arguments.
On November 21, 1977, after all briefs on appeal had been received, the government moved to dismiss for mootness. The motion alleges that Dretsch and the Custer County Bank have complied fully with the district court's order and the terms of the summons. Because of the bank's full compliance, the government contends that there is no live controversy and the case is moot. In their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Kis
...29, 31 (8th Cir. 1979); United States v. First National Bank of Sturgis, S. D., 587 F.2d 909, 910 (8th Cir. 1978); Barney v. United States, 568 F.2d 116 (8th Cir. 1978). Ninth Circuit: SEC v. Laird, 598 F.2d 1162 (9th Cir. 1979) (analogous SEC subpoena case).United States v. Friedman, 532 F......
-
Gluck v. U.S., s. 84-5323
...mootness by refusing to comply"); United States v. Deak-Perera Banking Corp., 610 F.2d 89 (2d Cir.1979) (same); Barney v. United States, 568 F.2d 116 (8th Cir.1978) (same); Kurshan v. Riley, 484 F.2d 952 (4th Cir.1973) (same); United States v. Lyons, 442 F.2d 1144 (1st Cir.1971) (mere possi......
-
U.S. v. Barrett
...F.2d 29, 31 (8th Cir.1979); United States v. First National Bank of Sturgis, S.D., 587 F.2d 909, 910 (8th Cir.1978); Barney v. United States, 568 F.2d 116 (8th Cir.1978). Ninth Circuit: SEC v. Laird, 598 F.2d 1162 (9th Cir.1979) (analogous SEC subpoena case). But see Gluck v. United States,......
-
U.S. v. Hefti
...109-110), upon turnover an appeal from an enforcement order becomes moot. U.S. v. Olson, 604 F.2d 29, 31 (8th Cir.1979); Barney v. U.S., 568 F.2d 116, 117 (8th Cir.1978).7 On the merits of this issue, the government concedes that "there are no reported cases directly on point," but marshals......