United States v. Jose, No. 95-2082

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
Citation117 S.Ct. 463,136 L.Ed.2d 364,519 U.S. 54
Docket NumberNo. 95-2082
PartiesUNITED STATES ET AL. v. LADDIE F. JOSE, TRUSTEE OF JOSE BUSINESS TRUST, ET AL
Decision Date02 December 1996
519 U.S. 54
117 S. Ct. 463
136 L. Ed. 2d 364

UNITED STATES ET AL.
v.
LADDIE F. JOSE, TRUSTEE OF JOSE BUSINESS TRUST, ET AL.

No. 95-2082.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

December 2, 1996, Decided


On Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Certiorari granted; 71 F.3d 1484, reversed and remanded.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners, the United States of America and Leslie M. Nishimura, Revenue Agent of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS or Service), commenced a proceeding to enforce two IRS summonses issued to Laddie F. Jose, as trustee for the Jose Business Trust and Jose Family Trust. The Service represented to the Magistrate that the documents sought "are for the purpose of a civil investigation." App. to Pet. for Cert. 16a. The Magistrate found the summonses valid and enforceable for the purpose stated. He did not address the question whether the summons enforcement requirements "would be satisfied in the event petitioners decide to pursue a criminal tax investigation." Ibid. That question was not before him in view of the sole purpose--civil investigation--specified by the IRS. Ibid.

The Magistrate recommended that the District Court (1) enforce petitioners' summonses, and (2) require the IRS to give respondent five days' notice prior to any circulation or transfer of the summoned documents to any division of the IRS other than the Examination Division. Id. at 20a-21a.

Before the District Court, neither party objected to the finding that the alleged civil investigation was a legitimate purpose and that the summonses are valid and should be enforced. Id. at 16a. The single issue in controversy was "whether [the court] may restrict enforcement of petitioners' summonses by requiring the IRS to notify respondent five days in advance before circulating, transferring, or copying the summon[ed] documents to any other division of the IRS, including its Criminal Investigation Division." Id. at 15a. The District Court determined that the restriction was lawful and proper and entered a final order to that effect. Id. at 19a.

The Service appealed, asserting that the District Court lacked authority to impose the restriction. The Ninth Circuit correctly recognized that it had jurisdiction "pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291," which authorizes appeals from "final decisions." It nonetheless dismissed the appeal "as not ripe." 71 F.3d 1484, 1485 (1995). The majority stated:

"The record indicates that the IRS...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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