Perkal v. Rayunec, 64 C 1344.
Decision Date | 24 November 1964 |
Docket Number | No. 64 C 1344.,64 C 1344. |
Citation | 237 F. Supp. 102 |
Parties | M. Jay PERKAL, Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service, v. Arthur T. RAYUNEC, Auditor of LaSalle National Bank, Chicago, Illinois. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Edward V. Hanrahan, U. S. Atty., for plaintiff.
Zenoff & Westler, Chicago, Ill., for defendant.
Petition to enforce Internal Revenue Summons.
Intervenor's motion to dismiss petition, and to quash summons.
This action has been brought pursuant to the provisions of Sections 7402(b) and 7604 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (Secs. 7402(b), 7604, Title 26 U.S.C.) to obtain an order directing the respondent auditor of the LaSalle National Bank to comply with the requirements of an Internal Revenue Summons, and produce certain records which are needed to complete a federal tax investigation. The taxpayer, Robert E. Gartland, has moved for leave to intervene pursuant to Rule 24(a) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to dismiss said petition, and to quash the summons.
In support of his motions, the taxpayer argues that he is the real party in interest and that the LaSalle National Bank was merely acting as his agent to carry on his banking affairs. Therefore, the taxpayer contends, if compliance with the summons is ordered, he will be denied his constitutional privileges against self-incrimination and unreasonable search and seizure.
This argument must fail. Through the enactment of Sections 6201 and 7602, Title 26, U.S.C., Congress has authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to determine whether income tax returns correctly include the true taxable income of the taxpayer. In furtherance of this objective, Congress has armed the Internal Revenue Service with the power to examine all relevant and material records, Sec. 7602(1), and to issue an administrative summons, Sec. 7602(2) to require their production. The primary question before the Court today is whether a taxpayer may assert a privilege to block an inspection of third party records when the summons has been issued to said third party. It would seem to be settled law that the taxpayer has no standing to object to their production.
In Zimmermann v. Wilson (3rd Cir., 1939) 105 F.2d 583, at pp. 585, 586, the Court stated:
And further, in DeMasters v. Arend (9th Cir., 1963) 313 F.2d 79, 85, the Court stated at footnote 11:
See also Application of Magnus (2d Cir., 1962)...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cook v. United States, Civ. No. LV 74-140.
...the taxpayer's; nor does he have a proprietary interest of any kind in them. 371 F.Supp. at 768. And, as stated in Perkal v. Rayunec, 237 F.Supp. 102, 104 (N.D.Ill.1964): It would therefore appear that the case law clearly states that a taxpayer is without standing to defeat compliance with......
-
Harris v. United States
...Foster v. United States, 265 F. 2d 183 (2 Cir. 1959), cert. denied, 360 U.S. 912, 79 S.Ct. 1297, 3 L.Ed.2d 1261 (1959). Perkal v. Rayunec, 237 F.Supp. 102 (N.D.Ill.1964) (the court here rejected the contention that the bank was acting as the taxpayer's agent); and S.E.C. v. National Bank of......
- Neal v. Corning Glass Works Corp.
-
Department of Revenue v. Continental Illinois Bank & Trust Co.
...85 S.Ct. 1803, 14 L.Ed.2d 723; United States v. Northwest Pennsylvania Bank & Tr. Co. (W.D.Pa.1973), 355 F.Supp. 607; Perkal v. Rayunec (N.D.Ill.1964), 237 F.Supp. 102. There are several reasons for our refusal to entertain the taxpayer's claim of constitutional deprivation in respect to hi......