United States v. Bowman
| Decision Date | 07 April 1966 |
| Docket Number | 15312.,No. 15311,15311 |
| Citation | 358 F.2d 421 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America and John P. Wright, Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service v. Melvyn R. BOWMAN, Appellant, C. Galen Detwiler, Dale W. Detwiler, Emmert I. Detwiler, Paul I. Detwiler, New Enterprise Stone & Lime Co., Inc., New Enterprise Equipment & Supply Co., Inc., and Somerset Limestone Co., Inc., Intervenors. UNITED STATES of America and John P. Wright, Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service v. Melvyn R. BOWMAN v. C. Galen DETWILER, Dale W. Detwiler, Emmert I. Detwiler, Paul I. Detwiler, New Enterprise Stone & Lime Co., Inc., New Enterprise Equpiment & Supply Co., Inc., and Somerset Limestone Co., Inc., Intervenors-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Harold W. Swope, Harrisburg, Pa., Daniels, Swope & Snyder, Harrisburg, Pa., on the brief), for appellant Bowman.
Raymond J. Bradley, Philadelphia, Pa., (Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen, by Michael von Moschzisker, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellants Detwiler and others.
John M. Brant, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Tax Div., Washington, D. C. (Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Joseph M. Howard, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Bernard J. Brown, U.S. Atty., Washington, D.C., on the brief), for appellee.
Before KALODNER, Chief Judge, and McLAUGHLIN and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
In the instant case the United States and John P. Wright, Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service, filed a petition in the District Court to enforce compliance with a summons directed to Melvyn R. Bowman, a resident partner of the accounting firm of Main, LaFrentz and Company. The summons, issued pursuant to the provisions of Sections 7402(b) and 7604(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, in the course of an investigation of the income tax liability of the New Enterprise Stone & Lime Co., Inc., directed Bowman to appear before Wright and to produce "all work papers, schedules, memorandums, correspondence and accounting reports prepared by your company in connection with your audits of: New Enterprise Stone & Lime Co., Inc., New Enterprise Equipment & Supply Co., Inc. and Somerset Limestone Co., Inc. for the years 1956 through 1962, inclusive."1
Bowman refused to comply with the summons on the ground that he was privileged to do so under the provisions of a Pennsylvania statute, 63 P.S. § 9.11a.2 The District Court, after a hearing, ordered Bowman to comply with the summons, holding "it is well established that there is no accountant-client privilege recognizable in the Federal system", and "the Pennsylvania accountant-client privilege does not extend to an accountant summoned by a Special Agent of the Internal Revenue." 236 F.Supp. 548, 550, 551 (E.D.Pa.1964).
We need not on this appeal reach the broad issue as to whether an accountant-client privilege created by state law can prevail in the execution of federal tax laws inasmuch as the facts in the instant case clearly establish that the provisions of the Pennsylvania statute do not extend the privilege asserted by Bowman.
The Pennsylvania statute provides as follows:
"Except by permission of the client or person or firm or corporation engaging him or the heirs, successors or personal representatives of such client or person or firm or corporation, a certified public accountant or a person employed by a certified public accountant shall not be required to, and shall not voluntarily, disclose or divulge information of which he may have become possessed relative to and in connection with any professional services as a certified public accountant other than the examination of audit of or report on any financial statements, books, records or accounts, which he may be engaged to make or requested by a prospective client to discuss. The information derived from or as the result of such professional services shall be deemed confidential and privileged: Provided, however, That nothing herein shall be taken or construed as modifying, changing or affecting the criminal or bankruptcy laws of this Commonwealth or of the United States. (emphasis supplied)
The Pennsylvania statute excludes from the privilege which it creates, in the terms italicized, the material to which the summons here relates.
Bowman's counsel during the hearing below specifically stated "that all the pertinent information in the possession or custody of Mr. Bowman, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Jaskiewicz
...sound and logical reasoning. The great weight of authority appears to be in agreement with it". Although on appeal in United States v. Bowman, 358 F.2d 421 (3rd Cir. 1966), the Circuit Court did not find it necessary to squarely pass upon the applicability of the Pennsylvania statute confer......
-
United States v. Schmidt
...341 F.Supp. 839, or any accounting workpapers pertaining to him. See United States v. Bowman, M.D.Pa. 1964, 236 F.Supp. 548, aff'd, 3 Cir. 1966, 358 F.2d 421. 9 See, e. g., Stuart v. United States, 5 Cir. 1969, 416 F.2d 459, 462-63. 10 Rogers v. United States, 1951, 340 U.S. 367, 371, 71 S.......
-
U.S. v. Arthur Young & Co., s. 15
...Wainwright, 413 F.2d 796, 803 (10th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1009, 90 S.Ct. 566, 24 L.Ed.2d 501 (1970); United States v. Bowman, 358 F.2d 421, 423 (3d Cir. 1966), or an accountant's work product, e.g., United States v. Kelly, 311 F.Supp. 1216, 1217 (E.D.Pa.1969); In re Rashba & Po......
-
United States v. Troupe, 18277-4.
...United States v. Balistrieri, 403 F.2d 472, 481 (7th Cir. 1968); United States v. Bowman, 236 F.Supp. 548 (D.Pa. 1964), aff'd 358 F.2d 421 (3d Cir. 1966); In re: Colton, 201 F.Supp. 13 (S.D.N.Y.1961), aff'd 306 F.2d 633 (2nd Cir. 1962), cert. den. 371 U.S. 951, 83 S. Ct. 505, 9 L.Ed.2d 499.......