United States v. Clarke

• Decision Date: 19 June 2014
• Docket Number: No. 13–301.,13–301.
• Citation: 134 S.Ct. 2361,573 U.S. 248,189 L.Ed.2d 330
• Parties: UNITED STATES, Petitioner v. Michael CLARKE et al.
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

573 U.S. 248

134 S.Ct. 2361

189 L.Ed.2d 330

UNITED STATES, Petitioner

v.Michael CLARKE et al.

No. 13–301.

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued April 23, 2014.

Decided June 19, 2014.

Sarah E. Harrington, for Petitioner.

Edward A. Marod, West Palm Beach, FL, for Respondents.

Edward A. Marod, Counsel of Record, Jack J. Aiello, Martin R. Press, Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., West Palm Beach, FL, Seth P. Waxman, Paul R.Q. Wolfson, Joshua M. Salzman, Christina Manfredi McKinley, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, Carleen M. Zubrzycki, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, New York, NY, for Respondents.

Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Solicitor General, Counsel of Record, Kathryn Keneally, Assistant Attorney General, Malcolm L. Stewart, Deputy Solicitor General, Sarah E. Harrington, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Robert W. Metzler, Deborah K. Snyder, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.

Justice KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS or Service) has broad statutory authority to summon a taxpayer to produce documents or give testimony relevant to determining tax liability. If the taxpayer fails to comply, the IRS may petition a federal district court to enforce the summons. In an enforcement proceeding, the IRS must show that it issued the summons in good faith.

This case requires us to consider when a taxpayer, as part of such a proceeding, has a right to question IRS officials about their reasons for issuing a summons. We hold, contrary to the Court of Appeals below, that a bare allegation of improper purpose does not entitle a taxpayer to examine IRS officials. Rather, the taxpayer has a right to conduct that examination when he points to specific facts or circumstances plausibly raising an inference of bad faith.

I

Congress has "authorized and required" the IRS "to make the inquiries, determinations, and assessments of all taxes" the Internal Revenue Code imposes. 26 U.S.C. § 6201(a). And in support of that authority, Congress has granted the Service broad latitude to issue summonses "[f]or 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 collecting any such liability." § 7602(a). Such a summons directs a taxpayer (or associated person¹ ) to appear before an IRS official and to provide sworn testimony or produce "books, papers, records, or other data ... relevant or material to [a tax] inquiry." § 7602(a)(1).

If a taxpayer does not comply with a summons, the IRS may bring an enforcement action in district court. See §§ 7402(b), 7604(a). In that proceeding, we have held, the IRS "need only demonstrate good faith in issuing the summons." United States v. Stuart, 489 U.S. 353, 359, 109 S.Ct. 1183, 103 L.Ed.2d 388 (1989). More specifically, that means establishing what have become known as the Powell factors: "that the investigation will be conducted pursuant to a legitimate purpose, that the inquiry may be relevant to the purpose, that the information sought is not already within the [IRS's] possession, and that the administrative steps required by the [Internal Revenue] Code have been followed." United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57–58, 85 S.Ct. 248, 13 L.Ed.2d 112 (1964). To make that showing, the IRS usually files an affidavit from the responsible investigating agent. See Stuart, 489 U.S., at 360, 109 S.Ct. 1183. The taxpayer, however, has an opportunity to challenge that affidavit, and to urge the court to quash the summons "on any appropriate ground"—including, as relevant here, improper purpose. See Reisman v. Caplin, 375 U.S. 440, 449, 84 S.Ct. 508, 11 L.Ed.2d 459 (1964).

The summons dispute in this case arose from an IRS examination of the tax returns of Dynamo Holdings Limited Partnership (Dynamo) for the 2005–2007 tax years. The IRS harbored suspicions about large interest expenses that those returns had reported. As its investigation proceeded, the Service persuaded Dynamo to agree to two year-long extensions of the usual 3–year limitations period for assessing tax liability; in 2010, with that period again drawing to a close, Dynamo refused to grant the IRS a third extension. Shortly thereafter, in September and October 2010, the IRS issued summonses to the respondents here, four individuals associated with Dynamo whom the Service believed had information and records relevant to Dynamo's tax obligations. None of the respondents complied with those summonses. In December 2010 (still within the augmented limitations period), the IRS issued a Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment proposing changes to Dynamo's returns that would result in greater tax liability. Dynamo responded in February 2011 by filing suit in the United States Tax Court to challenge the adjustments. That litigation remains pending. A few months later, in April 2011, the IRS instituted proceedings in District Court to compel the respondents to comply with the summonses they had gotten.

Those enforcement proceedings developed into a dispute about the IRS's reasons for issuing the summonses. The IRS submitted an investigating agent's affidavit attesting to the Powell factors; among other things, that declaration maintained that the testimony and records sought were necessary to "properly investigate the correctness of [Dynamo's] federal tax reporting" and that the summonses were "not issued to harass or for any other improper purpose." App. 26, 34. In reply, the respondents pointed to circumstantial evidence that, in their view, suggested "ulterior motive[s]" of two different kinds. App. to Pet. for Cert. 72a. First, the respondents asserted that the IRS issued the summonses to "punish[ ] [Dynamo] for refusing to agree to a further extension of the applicable statute of limitations." App. 52. More particularly, they stated in sworn declarations that immediately after Dynamo declined to grant a third extension of time, the IRS, "despite having not asked for additional information for some time, ... suddenly issued" the summonses. Id., at 95. Second, the respondents averred that the IRS decided to enforce the summonses, subsequent to Dynamo's filing suit in Tax Court, to "evad[e] the Tax Court['s] limitations on discovery" and thus gain an unfair advantage in that litigation. Id., at 53. In support of that charge, the respondents submitted an affidavit from the attorney of another Dynamo associate, who had chosen to comply with a summons issued at the same time. The attorney reported that only the IRS attorneys handling the Tax Court case, and not the original investigating agents, were present at the interview of his client. In light of those submissions, the respondents asked for an opportunity to question the agents about their motives.

The District Court denied that request and ordered the respondents to comply with the summonses. According to the court, the respondents "ha[d] made no meaningful allegations of improper purpose" warranting examination of IRS agents. App. to Pet. for Cert. 18a. The court characterized the respondents' statute-of-limitations theory as "mere conjecture." Id., at 14a. And it ruled that the respondents' evasion-of-discovery-limits claim was "incorrect as a matter of law" because "[t]he validity of a summons is tested as of the date of issuance," not enforcement—and the Tax Court proceedings had not yet begun when the IRS issued the summonses. Id., at 15a.

The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding that the District Court's refusal to allow the respondents to examine IRS agents constituted an abuse of discretion. In support of that ruling, the Court of Appeals cited binding Circuit precedent holding that a simple "allegation of improper purpose," even if lacking any "factual support ," entitles a taxpayer to "question IRS officials concerning the Service's reasons for issuing the summons." 517 Fed.Appx. 689, 691 (2013) (quoting United States v. Southeast First Nat. Bank of Miami Springs, 655 F.2d 661, 667 (C.A.5 1981) ); see Nero Trading, LLC v. United States Dept. of Treasury, 570 F.3d 1244, 1249 (C.A.11 2009) (reaffirming Southeast ).

Every other Court of Appeals has rejected the Eleventh Circuit's view that a bare allegation of improper motive entitles a person objecting to an IRS summons to examine the responsible officials.² We granted certiorari to resolve that conflict, 571 U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 895, 187 L.Ed.2d 701 (2014), and we now vacate the Eleventh Circuit's opinion.

II

A person receiving an IRS summons is, as we have often held, entitled to contest it in an enforcement proceeding. See United States v. Bisceglia, 420 U.S. 141, 146, 95 S.Ct. 915, 43 L.Ed.2d 88 (1975) ; Powell, 379 U.S., at 57–58, 85 S.Ct. 248; Reisman, 375 U.S., at 449, 84 S.Ct. 508. The power "vested in tax collectors may be abused, as all power" may be abused. Bisceglia, 420 U.S., at 146, 95 S.Ct. 915. In recognition of that possibility, Congress made enforcement of an IRS summons contingent on a court's approval. See 26 U.S.C. § 7604(b). And we have time and again stated that the requisite judicial proceeding is not ex parte but adversarial. See Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517, 527, 91 S.Ct. 534, 27 L.Ed.2d 580 (1971) ; Powell, 379 U.S., at 58, 85 S.Ct. 248; Reisman, 375 U.S., at 446, 84 S.Ct. 508. The summoned party must receive notice, and may present argument and evidence on all matters bearing on a summons's validity. See Powell, 379 U.S., at 58, 85 S.Ct. 248.

Yet we have also emphasized that summons enforcement proceedings are to be "summary in nature." Stuart, 489 U.S., at 369, 109 S.Ct. 1183. The purpose of a summons is "not to accuse," much less to adjudicate, but only "to inquire." Bisceglia, 420 U.S., at 146, 95 S.Ct. 915. And such an investigatory tool, we have recognized, is a crucial backstop in a tax system based on self-reporting. See ibid. (restricting summons...