Hair Industry, Ltd. v. United States, 294
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 340 F.2d 510 |
| Parties | HAIR INDUSTRY, LTD., Adorable Hair-Do Corp., Howard Tresses, Inc., George Rosen and Ruth Rosen, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | Docket 29301.,No. 294,294 |
| Decision Date | 26 January 1965 |
340 F.2d 510 (1965)
HAIR INDUSTRY, LTD., Adorable Hair-Do Corp., Howard Tresses, Inc., George Rosen and Ruth Rosen, Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 294, Docket 29301.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued January 13, 1965.
Decided January 26, 1965.
Anthony H. Atlas, of Atlas, Berg & Mendalis, New York City (Nicholas Atlas, New York City, on the brief), for appellants.
Eugene R. Anderson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Southern Dist. of New York (Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty., and Arthur S. Olick, Asst. U. S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.
Before SMITH, KAUFMAN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
George Rosen and Ruth Rosen, Hair Industry, Ltd., a corporation wholly owned by George Rosen, Adorable Hair-Do Corp. and Howard Tresses, Inc., wholly owned subsidiaries of Hair Industry, appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Dudley B. Bonsal, District Judge, enforcing an Internal Revenue Service subpoena for the books of the three corporations. We find no error and affirm the order of the District Court.
The single question presented by this appeal is whether the sole owner of a corporation can legally refuse to produce corporate records and documents on the basis of his personal constitutional privileges under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. In this case, the Internal Revenue Service has attempted to subpoena the books of Hair Industry Ltd., a family corporation owned in its entirety by appellant George Rosen, as well as the records of Adorable Hair-Do Corp. and Howard Tresses, Inc., both wholly owned subsidiaries of Hair Industry. The three corporations at one time functioned as a single family partnership but were incorporated prior to the period under investigation. The books are sought in investigations of the corporations' tax liabilities.
Relying on United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694, 64 S.Ct. 1248, 88 L.Ed. 1542 (1944), which denied the privilege for records of unincorporated associations only where held in a representative capacity, appellants urge that the test developed there is whether the one claiming the privilege represents his own interest and that, generally, in determining when the privilege can be invoked form must give way to substance. While there is some appeal to this argument, it is impossible to reconcile with the rationale of Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 26 S.Ct. 370, 50 L.Ed. 652 (1906), which based denial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bellis v. United States 8212 190, 73
...U.S. 74, 33 S.Ct. 190, 57 L.Ed. 423 (1913); Fineberg v. United States, 393 F.2d 417, 420 (CA9 1968); Hair Industry, Ltd. v. United States, 340 F.2d 510 (CA2 1965); cf. George Campbell Painting Corp. v. Reid, 392 U.S. 286, 88 S.Ct. 1978, 20 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1968). Every State has now adopted la......
-
People ex rel. Scott v. Pintozzi, 43012
...may be used as evidence against him even where the corporation is his mere alter ego. (Hair Industry Ltd. v. United States (2d cir.), 340 F.2d 510; United States v. Fago (2d cir.), 319 F.2d 791; United States v. Guterma (2d cir.), 272 F.2d 344; Lagow v. United States (2d cir.), 159 F.2d 245......
-
United States v. Malnik, 72-3153.
...and books were held in a personal capacity. Wright v. Detwiler, 345 F.2d 1012 (3rd Cir., 1965); Hair Industry, Inc. v. United States, 340 F.2d 510, 511 (2nd Cir., 1965), cert. den. 381 U.S. 950, 85 S.Ct. 1804, 14 L.Ed.2d 724 (1965); United States v. Guterma, 272 F.2d 344, 346 (28nd Cir., 19......
-
Hensley v. United States, 9832.
...him, Communist Party of United States v. United States, 127 U.S.App.D.C. 389, 384 F.2d 957; Hair Industry, Ltd. v. United States, 2 Cir., 340 F.2d 510, cert. denied, 381 U.S. 950, 85 S.Ct. 1804, 14 L.Ed.2d 724; Imperial Meat Co. v. United States, 10 Cir., 316 F.2d 435, cert. denied, 375 U.S......