In re New York State Sales Tax Records

Decision Date08 October 1974
Citation382 F. Supp. 1205
PartiesIn re Grand Jury Subpoena for the Production of Certain NEW YORK STATE SALES TAX RECORDS.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of New York

John T. Elfvin, U. S. Atty. (Dennis P. O'Keefe, Dept. of Justice Attorney, Buffalo, N. Y., of counsel), for the Government.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. of the State of New York (Anthony M. Leone, Buffalo, N. Y., of counsel), for Abram J. Cutler and New York State Dept. of Taxation and Finance.

CURTIN, Chief Judge.

On June 11, 1974 a federal grand jury subpoena was served upon Abram J. Cutler, Custodian of the Records, New York State Sales Tax Returns, directing Mr. Cutler to appear before a federal grand jury in Buffalo, New York on July 2, 1974, and to bring with him the records of certain New York corporations for presentation to the Grand Jury. On June 27, 1974 the State of New York, through an Assistant Attorney General, moved to quash the federal grand jury subpoena, giving as a reason that, if Mr. Cutler honors the subpoena, he will violate New York State Law, Section 1146 (a), McKinney's Consol.Laws, c. 60, of the Tax Law. The State maintains that, if Mr. Cutler provides the jury with the records, he will be subject to a $1,000 fine and a year's imprisonment under Section 1146(f) of the Tax Law. Section 1146(a) of the New York State Tax Law provides as follows:

Except in accordance with proper judicial order or as otherwise provided by law, it shall be unlawful for the tax commission, any tax commissioner, any officer or employee of the department of taxation and finance, or any person who in any manner may acquire knowledge of the contents of a return or report filed with the tax commission pursuant to this article, to divulge or make known in any manner any particulars set forth or disclosed in any such return or report.

In moving to quash the State has misconceived the thrust of the federal subpoena and the purpose of its own nondisclosure law, which is to prevent dissemination of confidential information to unauthorized persons. By its own terms, Section 1146(a) provides that the nondisclosure prohibition is not applicable when the tax commission acts in accordance with a proper judicial order.

The federal grand jury has traditionally been granted broad investigative power to inquire into violations of criminal law. "It is a grand inquest, a body with powers of investigation and inquisition, the scope of whose inquiry is not to be limited * * * by doubts whether any particular individual will be found properly subject to an accusation of crime." Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273, 282, 39 S.Ct. 468, 471, 63 L.Ed. 979 (1919). The federal grand jury has a special role in the law enforcement process. It is an ex parte investigation to determine the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Grand Jury Impaneled January 21, 1975, Matter of
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • January 21, 1975
    ...of them at the time the subpoena was issued. See Schwimmer v. United States, supra, 232 F.2d at 860; In re New York State Sales Tax Records, 382 F.Supp. 1205, 1206 (W.D.N.Y.1974); cf. Fisher v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 96 S.Ct. 1569, 48 L.Ed.2d 39 (1976), aff'g 500 F.2d 683 (3d Cir. 19......
  • In re Grand Jury
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • April 13, 1999
    ...F.Supp. 576, 579-80 (E.D.La.1980); United States v. Grand Jury Investigation, 417 F.Supp. 389, 393 (E.D.Pa.1976); In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 382 F.Supp. 1205 (W.D.N.Y.1974). Seemingly, a federal grand jury can obtain state grand jury records pursuant to a subpoena, regardless of state grand......
  • Special April 1977 Grand Jury, Matter of
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • August 11, 1978
    ...373 (3d Cir. 1976), even in cases in which state law prohibited the disclosure of the records. E. g., In re New York State Sales Tax Records, 382 F.Supp. 1205, 1206 (W.D.N.Y.1975). 3 Where, as here, the State argues that at least some of the records are required to be disclosed rather than ......
  • SEC v. First Tenn. Bank NA Memphis
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee
    • February 27, 1978
    ...springs from Article III and the Seventh Amendment, the latter probably from Article I. In a case styled In re New York State Sales Tax Records, 382 F.Supp. 1205 (W.D.N.Y.1974), the Federal grand jury subpoenaed certain sales tax records held by the custodian of the records in New York. New......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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