United States v. Pritchard, 29799.

Decision Date31 March 1971
Docket NumberNo. 29799.,29799.
Citation438 F.2d 969
PartiesUNITED STATES of America and James E. Vest, Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service, Petitioners-Appellants, v. William S. PRITCHARD, Jr., Respondent-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Wayman G. Sherrer, U. S. Atty., Birmingham, Ala., Johnnie M. Walters, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Joseph M. Howard, John M. Brant, Attys., Tax Div., U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for petitioners-appellants.

William S. Pritchard, Jr., W. B. McCall, Birmingham, Ala., for respondent-appellee.

Before BELL, DYER and RONEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The United States appeals from the District Court's dismissal with prejudice of its petition to enforce an Internal Revenue Service Summons, issued pursuant to 26 U.S.C.A. § 7602,1 to appellee Pritchard. The summons required Pritchard, a tax attorney, to appear, testify and produce for examination tax return files and related work papers concerning his clients, the taxpayers Graffeos. Upon refusing to testify or produce the files, enforcement proceedings were commenced pursuant to 26 U.S.C.A. § 7604(a).2 Following a full hearing,3 the District Judge dismissed the petition.4 He concluded, among other things, that the Government "had failed to establish that the information sought is not already within the Commissioner's possession." Finding, as we do, that the evidence clearly showed that the Government already had possession of the information sought, we affirm.

In March 1968 Vest, a Special Agent of the Internal Revenue Service, advised taxpayers' certified public accountant Hullett that the agent was investigating the Graffeos' tax liabilities for 1960 through 1966. Thereafter, Pritchard acquired possession of the taxpayers' file from Hullett. A summons directed to Pritchard was issued by Special Agent Vest. Pritchard appeared before Vest but refused to testify or produce the papers. There followed enforcement proceedings which, as we have related, were dismissed by the court.

While it is clear that the burden is on the taxpayer to prove that the summons is being utilized for harassment or is an abuse of the court's process, United States v. Powell, 1964, 379 U.S. 48, 58, 85 S.Ct. 248, 255, 13 L.Ed.2d 112; United States v. Roundtree, 5 Cir. 1969, 420 F.2d 845, 851; Venn v. United States, 5 Cir. 1968, 400 F.2d 207, 210, the Supreme Court has held that the Commissioner

must show 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 Commissioner\'s possession, and that the administrative steps required by the Code have been followed * * *. (Emphasis supplied)

United States v. Powell, supra, 379 U.S. at 57-58, 85 S.Ct. at 255. Neither the Government's petition nor the agent's affidavit made reference to whether the information sought was in the Commissioner's possession.5

It is undisputed that prior to the service of the summons on Pritchard, accountant Hullett had met with IRS agent Adams. Hullett testified that Adams had looked at all copies of taxpayers' papers in Hullett's file; that Adams' investigation lasted for several weeks; and that togther he and Adams had spent a total of three or four hours examining the file.

It is clear that the information sought by the summons was already within the Commissioner's possession. The judgment of the District Court is

Affirmed.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

It is ordered that the petition for rehearing filed in the above entitled and numbered cause be and the same is hereby denied. See Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517, 91 S.Ct. 534, 27 L.Ed.2d 580 (1971).

1 Section 7602 provides in pertinent part:

For the purpose of ascertaining the correctness of any return where none has been made, determining the liability of any person for any internal revenue tax * * * or collecting any such liability, the Secretary or his delegate is authorized —

* * * * *

(2) To summon the person liable for tax or required to perform the act, or any officer or employee of such person, or any...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • United States v. Schoeberlein
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • December 10, 1971
    ...justify the invocation of this rule." Records Already in Possession of Government Respondents claim, on the basis of United States v. Pritchard, 438 F. 2d 969 (5 Cir. 1971), that the prior examination of their records by Agent Lewald precludes further government access to the documents. In ......
  • United States v. Humble Oil & Refining Company
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • March 7, 1974
    ...Co., 355 F.Supp. 607, 614 (W.D.Pa.1973). 12 See United States v. Weingarden, 473 F.2d 454, 458 (6th Cir. 1973); United States v. Pritchard, 438 F.2d 969, 971 (5th Cir. 1971); United States v. Monsey, 429 F.2d 1348, 1351 (7th Cir. 1970); United States v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., 415 F.2d......
  • U.S. v. Wyatt
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • February 17, 1981
    ...at 58, 85 S.Ct. at 255, 13 L.Ed.2d at 120. See United States v. Weingarden, 473 F.2d 454, 458 (6th Cir. 1973); United States v. Pritchard, 438 F.2d 969, 971 (5th Cir. 1971); United States v. Monsey, 429 F.2d 1348, 1351 (7th Cir. 1970). 15 Such an abuse would occur if the summons purpose was......
  • U.S. v. Davis
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • February 12, 1981
    ...or inspection" within the meaning of § 7605(b). The "already possessed" rule should be limited to such cases as United States v. Pritchard, 5 Cir. 1971, 438 F.2d 969, where a revenue agent had informally examined the taxpayer's records at length and later sought to force their production wi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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