U.S. v. Theep, s. 73-1163
| Decision Date | 03 September 1974 |
| Docket Number | 73-1195,Nos. 73-1163,s. 73-1163 |
| Citation | 502 F.2d 797 |
| Parties | 74-2 USTC P 9702 UNITED STATES of America and Ronald H. Eggleston, Revenue Agent, Petitioners-Appellees, v. Raymond J. THEEP, Respondent-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America and Ronald H. Eggleston, Revenue Agent, Petitioners-Appellees, v. Stanley STEINERT, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Raymond J. Theep, in pro per.
Stanley Steinert, in pro per.
Grant W. Wiprud, Atty., Tax Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice (argued), Washington, D.C., for petitioners-appellees.
Before MERRILL and KILKENNY, Circuit Judges, and CRARY, District judge. 1
The above entitled actions were consolidated for trial in the District Court. The appeal in each case involved the same issues of fact and law. The appellants appeared in propria persona in the District Court and in these appeals and have filed consolidated briefs on appeal.
Demand for refunds of income taxes allegedly overpaid for the year 1971 were made by the appellants, Theep for $124.57 and Steinert for $932.48. The refunds were denied and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued and served on each appellant a summons to produce all bank records and all other records pertaining to the information used in the preparation of their tax returns and the computation of tax as disclosed in their income tax returns relating to the years 1969, 1970 and 1971. Each appellant presented himself before the appellee, Revenue Agent Ronald H. Eggleston, at the appointed time, December 7, 1972, and place, with his records but refused to disclose them to the Revenue Agent or to testify as to the said records, claiming the information was protected by the unreasonable search and seizure provisions of the Fourth Amendment and their right not to incriminate themselves under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Government then petitioned the District Court for enforcement of the summons whereupon the appellants moved to dismiss the petition for enforcement and petitioned the Court for an injunction prohibiting the appellee Eggleston from issuing any further 'abusive' process. As part of their petitions for injunction, Theep asserted his 1971 tax was overpaid by $124.57 and appellant Steinert claimed overpayment of his 1971 tax in the sum of $932.48. It is to be noted that the 1969 deficiency was determined by the IRS from the information at hand before the running of the statute of limitations.
The Government, at the hearing on December 7, 1972, conceded that there might be specific answers or documents which were protected by the Constitution but objected to the blanket refusal by the taxpayers to disclose their records.
In the circumstances the Government summons enforcement proceedings were not barred by Title 26, U.S.C. 6213(a), because of the refusal of the IRS to make the 1971 refunds claimed by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Davis
...on claims of privilege at all at the enforcement stage. E. g., Russell v. United States, 8 Cir. 1975, 524 F.2d 1152; United States v. Theep, 9 Cir. 1974, 502 F.2d 797. In this Circuit, the division of responsibility between the initial enforcement proceeding and later contempt proceedings f......
-
Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp.
...shield a taxpayer's papers from scrutiny by government agents engaged in reasonable activities to determine taxes. (See United States v. Theep (9th Cir.1974) 502 F.2d 797; United States v. Ahmanson (9th Cir.1969) 415 F.2d 785; cf. Fisher v. United States (1976) 425 U.S. 391, 401, fn. 7, 96 ......
-
U.S. v. Pierce
...v. Gomez-Rojas, 507 F.2d 1213, 1219-20 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 826, 96 S.Ct. 41, 46 L.Ed.2d 42 (1975); United States v. Theep, 502 F.2d 797, 798 (9th Cir. 1974); United States v. Malnik, supra, 489 F.2d at 685. In this regard, we approve the analysis of the Fifth Circuit in Unite......
-
U.S. v. Clark
...cause."), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Jose, 131 F.3d 1325, 1329 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc); United States v. Theep, 502 F.2d 797, 798 (9th Cir.1974) ("the unlawful search and seizure provisions of the Fourth Amendment do not protect the taxpayer from an IRS summons"); Unite......