U.S. v. Horton, No. 78-2740
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | WALLACE |
| Citation | 629 F.2d 577 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-2740 |
| Decision Date | 24 September 1980 |
| Parties | 80-2 USTC P 9704 UNITED STATES of America and Lawnie Mayhew, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Jack HORTON and Schonert Construction, Inc., Defendants-Appellants. |
Page 577
v.
Jack HORTON and Schonert Construction, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.
Ninth Circuit.
Decided Sept. 24, 1980.
Page 578
Ronald K. Van Wert, Irvine, Cal., for defendants-appellants.
Gilbert E. Andrews, Washington, D. C., on brief; George L. Hastings, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for plaintiffs-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before MARKEY, * Chief Judge, and WALLACE and HUG, Circuit Judges.
WALLACE, Circuit Judge:
Schonert Construction, Inc. (Schonert) and Horton appeal from a district court order enforcing a summons of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). United States v. Horton, 452 F.Supp. 472 (C.D.Cal.1978). They contend that the summons fails to meet the requirements set forth in United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 85 S.Ct. 248, 13 L.Ed.2d 112 (1964), that it violates various constitutional provisions, and that some of the requested materials should have been suppressed because of allegedly illegal actions by the IRS. We affirm.
Schonert is in the framing construction business in Orange County, California, and Horton was president of Schonert at all times relevant to our inquiry. In 1977 the IRS conducted an investigation of Schonert's tax liability for 1974-1977. Revenue agent Smith conducted the initial examination of Schonert's records and determined that adjustments were required because of allegedly unsubstantiated deductions. In addition, the matter was referred to special agent Mayhew for investigation of suspected fraud.
Agent Mayhew issued the challenged summons in August 1977 and petitioned for enforcement in March 1978. In a declaration attached to the enforcement petition, agent Mayhew asserted that the information was not in his possession and that it was necessary to examine the summoned records to ascertain Schonert's tax liability. In September 1977, agent Mayhew contacted an attorney of a Schonert shareholder and obtained copies of at least some of the records referred to in the summons. The attorney had obtained these records from Schonert's accountants, who, as third-party recordkeepers, had received a separate summons and a notice from Schonert not to comply.
In United States v. Powell, supra, 379 U.S. 48, 85 S.Ct. 248, 13 L.Ed.2d 112, the Supreme Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Bruce, No. 03-30171.
...over the years appears to have been to require the prosecution to disprove affirmative defenses beyond a reasonable doubt"); Guess, 629 F.2d at 577 n. 4 (explaining the general rule that "once a criminal defendant satisfies his burden of production with respect to an affirmative defense, th......
-
Donovan v. National Bank of Alaska, No. 81-3562
...it might be required at some time in the future to produce records in violation of the Financial Privacy Act. Cf. United States v. Horton, 629 F.2d 577, 579 (9th Cir.1980) (fifth amendment privilege may not be raised by blanket assertion but must be interposed in response to specific 3. The......
-
Barnhart v. United Penn Bank, Civ. No. 79-0914.
...See also United States v. Berg, 636 F.2d 203, 205 (8th Cir. 1980); United States v. Horton, 452 F.Supp. 472, 474-76 (C.D.Cal.1978), aff'd, 629 F.2d 577 (9th Cir. 1980). At this stage in the litigation, the intervenors contend that enforcement of the summons is inappropriate, because the IRS......
-
United States v. Galloway, No. 1:14-cr-00114-DAD-BAM
...7609 is not intended to expand the substantive rights of parties." United States v. Horton, 452 F. Supp. 472, 476 (C.D. Cal. 1978), aff'd, 629 F.2d 577 (9th Cir. 1980). Finally, as the authorities cited above establish, since the enactment of § 7609 in 1976, federal courts have continued to......
-
U.S. v. Bruce, No. 03-30171.
...over the years appears to have been to require the prosecution to disprove affirmative defenses beyond a reasonable doubt"); Guess, 629 F.2d at 577 n. 4 (explaining the general rule that "once a criminal defendant satisfies his burden of production with respect to an affirmative defense, th......
-
Donovan v. National Bank of Alaska, No. 81-3562
...it might be required at some time in the future to produce records in violation of the Financial Privacy Act. Cf. United States v. Horton, 629 F.2d 577, 579 (9th Cir.1980) (fifth amendment privilege may not be raised by blanket assertion but must be interposed in response to specific 3. The......
-
Barnhart v. United Penn Bank, Civ. No. 79-0914.
...See also United States v. Berg, 636 F.2d 203, 205 (8th Cir. 1980); United States v. Horton, 452 F.Supp. 472, 474-76 (C.D.Cal.1978), aff'd, 629 F.2d 577 (9th Cir. 1980). At this stage in the litigation, the intervenors contend that enforcement of the summons is inappropriate, because the IRS......
-
United States v. Galloway, No. 1:14-cr-00114-DAD-BAM
...7609 is not intended to expand the substantive rights of parties." United States v. Horton, 452 F. Supp. 472, 476 (C.D. Cal. 1978), aff'd, 629 F.2d 577 (9th Cir. 1980). Finally, as the authorities cited above establish, since the enactment of § 7609 in 1976, federal courts have continued to......