U.S. v. Euge, 78-1284

Citation587 F.2d 25
Decision Date22 November 1978
Docket NumberNo. 78-1284,78-1284
Parties78-2 USTC P 9817 UNITED STATES of America and Patrick J. Finnessey, Special Agent for the Internal Revenue Service, Appellees, v. Harvey F. EUGE, Appellant.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)

James W. Erwin of Thompson & Mitchell, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.

Daniel F. Ross, Atty., Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee; M. Carr Ferguson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Gilbert E. Andrews, Carleton D. Powell and Richard D. Buik, Attys., Washington, D. C., and Robert D. Kingsland, U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., on the brief.

Before GIBSON, Chief Judge, and LAY, HEANEY, BRIGHT, ROSS, STEPHENSON, HENLEY and McMILLIAN, Circuit Judges, En Banc.

HENLEY, Circuit Judge.

This appeal which comes to us from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri 1 raises again the question of whether § 7602 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 7602, authorizes the Internal Revenue Service to require a taxpayer whose potential tax liabilities are under investigation to appear before a Special Agent of the Service and to furnish multiple handwriting exemplars to the Special Agent for comparison purposes. A majority of this court answered that question in the affirmative in United States v. Campbell, 524 F.2d 604 (8th Cir. 1975). 2 The question having recurred in this case, the court deemed it well to hear this appeal En banc and has done so 26 U.S.C. § 7602 is as follows:

For the purpose of ascertaining the correctness of any return, making a return where none has been made, determining the liability of any person for any internal revenue tax or the liability at law or in equity of any transferee or fiduciary of any person in respect of any internal revenue tax, or collecting any such liability, the Secretary or his delegate is authorized

(1) To examine any books, papers, records, or other data which may be relevant or material to such inquiry;

(2) To summon the person liable for tax or required to perform the act, or any officer or employee of such person, or any person having possession, custody, or care of books of account containing entries relating to the business of the person liable for tax or required to perform the act, or any other person the Secretary or his delegate may deem proper, to appear before the Secretary or his delegate at a time and place named in the summons and to produce such books, papers, records, or other data, and to give such testimony, under oath, as may be relevant or material to such inquiry; and

(3) To take such testimony of the person concerned, under oath, as may be relevant or material to such inquiry.

Where a taxpayer fails or refuses to obey an administrative subpoena issued by an agent of the IRS, the subpoena may be enforced by a judicial proceeding in the appropriate district court as provided by 26 U.S.C. § 7604, which is as follows:

(a) Jurisdiction of district court. If any person is summoned under the internal revenue laws to appear, to testify, or to produce books, papers, records, or other data, the United States district court for the district in which such person resides or is found shall have jurisdiction by appropriate process to compel such attendance, testimony, or production of books, papers, records, or other data.

(b) Enforcement. Whenever any person summoned under section 6420(e)(2), 6421(f)(2), 6424(d)(2), or 7602 neglects or refuses to obey such summons, or to produce books, papers, records, or other data, or to give testimony, as required, the Secretary or his delegate may apply to the judge of the district court or to a United States commissioner for the district within which the person so summoned resides or is found for an attachment against him as for a contempt. It shall be the duty of the judge or commissioner to hear the application, and, if satisfactory proof is made, to issue an attachment, directed to some proper officer, for the arrest of such person, and upon his being brought before him to proceed to a hearing of the case; and upon such hearing the judge or the United States commissioner shall have power to make such order as he shall deem proper, not inconsistent with the law for the punishment of contempts, to enforce obedience to the requirements of the summons and to punish such person for his default or disobedience.

There is no dispute about the facts of the case. In October, 1977 Special Agent Finnessey was investigating the tax obligations of respondent Harvey F. Euge for the tax years 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1976, and in connection with that investigation Special Agent Finnessey served a subpoena on Euge pursuant to § 7602 commanding the taxpayer to appear and furnishing handwriting exemplars.

Respondent advised the Special Agent that he had no intention of complying with the subpoena and did not do so. This action was commenced under § 7604 on January 12, 1978; an order to show cause was issued by the district court on January 13. Various proceedings were had in the district court in connection with discovery...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • United States v. Euge
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • February 20, 1980
    ...Amendment protections nor testimonial evidence protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Pp. 717-718. 8 Cir., 587 F.2d 25, Stuart A. Smith, Washington, D. C., for petitioners. James W. Erwin, St. Louis, Mo., for respondent. Mr. Justice REHNQUIST delivered the op......
  • Kirkland v. State, 3-89-109-CR
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • March 28, 1990
  • UNITED STATES V. EUGE
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • February 20, 1980
    ...Fourth Amendment protections nor testimonial evidence protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. P P. 717-718. 587 F.2d 25, REHNQUIST, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and STEWART, WHITE, BLACKMUN, and POWELL, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J......
  • U.S. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 79-1317
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • January 18, 1980
    ......        Although the full report from Milbank to the special committee is not before us, the record suggests that it was in the . Page 986. nature of legal advice or opinion to persons ...1977). The question is pending before the Supreme Court in United States v. Euge......
  • 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