United States v. Ruggeiro
| Decision Date | 28 April 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 24519-24524.,24519-24524. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America and Charles H. Moriyama, Special Agent of the Internal Revenue Service, Petitioners-Appellees, v. M. P. RUGGEIRO, as Vice President Finance & Administration of Jordanos' Inc., and Jordanos' Inc., Respondents-Appellants. UNITED STATES of America and Charles H. Moriyama, etc., Petitioners-Appellees, v. John L. JORDANO, Jr., as President of Pacific Beverages Company, and Pacific Beverages Company, Respondents-Appellants. UNITED STATES of America and Charles H. Moriyama, etc., Petitioners-Appellees, v. John L. JORDANO, Jr., as President of Chef's Vendors, Inc., and Chef's Vendors, Inc., Respondents-Appellants. UNITED STATES of America and Charles H. Moriyama, etc., Petitioners-Appellees, v. John L. JORDANO, Jr., as President of Jorland, Inc., and Jorland, Inc., Respondents-Appellants. UNITED STATES of America and Charles H. Moriyama, etc., Petitioners-Appellees, v. John L. JORDANO, Jr., as President of Jorlease, Inc., and Jorlease, Inc., Respondents-Appellants. UNITED STATES of America and Charles H. Moriyama, etc., Petitioners-Appellees, v. James D. JORDANO, as Vice President of Jantro Investment Company, and Jantro Investment Company, Respondents-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Thomas A. Baird (argued), of Baird, Holley, Baird & Galen, Los Angeles, Cal., for respondents-appellants.
John P. Burke (argued), Atty., Tax Div., Johnnie M. Walters, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., Wm. Matthew Bryne, Jr., U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioners-appellees.
Before BROWNING, DUNIWAY, and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
These are six consolidated appeals from orders of the district court requiring the production of corporate records specified in summonses issued by a special agent of the Internal Revenue Service pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7602.1
Appellants contend that enforcement of the summonses would offend the Fourth Amendment because they were issued solely to determine if a criminal violation had occurred. In Howfield, Inc. v. United States, 409 F.2d 694, 697 (9th Cir. 1969), we stated that "summonses to examine taxpayer's records, obtained pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7602, may be used even where their purpose is allegedly to uncover crime, when no criminal case is actually pending against the taxpayer." See United States v. Ahmanson, 415 F.2d 785, 787 (9th Cir. 1969). See also Wild v. United States, 362 F.2d 206, 208-209 (9th Cir. 1966); Boren v. Tucker, 239 F.2d 767, 772-773 (9th Cir. 1956).
Appellants argue that the court below erred in rejecting their contention that the summonses were oppressive and too broad in scope. The district court has considerable discretion in determining these matters, Dunn v. Ross, 356 F.2d 664, 667 (5th Cir. 1966); In re Magnus, Mabee & Reynard, Inc., 311 F.2d 12, 17 (2d Cir. 1962), and the limits of that discretion were not exceeded here. Section 7602 requires that the records be "relevant or material" to the inquiry being made, but those terms have a broader connotation in this context than in the context of trial, United States v. McKay, 372 F.2d 174, 176 (5th Cir. 1967); and although the records demanded appear to be voluminous, the Internal Revenue Service offered to inspect them at their place of storage. United States v. Dauphin Deposit Trust Co., 385 F.2d 129, 131 (3d Cir. 1967).
Appellants offer nothing specific to support their assertion that they were "severely handicapped" by the trial court's orders omitting the usual pretrial hearing and limiting discovery. We think the court acted within the discretion conferred upon it by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 81(a) (3). See United States v. Benford, 406 F.2d 1192, 1194 (7th Cir. 1969).
Finally, certain appellants assert that the Regional Commissioner was required by 26 U.S.C. § 7605(b)2 to make an independent investigation of the need for a reinspection of their books and records, and that he could not simply rely upon an investigation of need and recommendation for reinspection by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Donaldson v. United States
...Bell Tel Co., 415 F.2d 1284, 1286 (CA6 1969); Howfield, Inc. v. United States, 409 F.2d 694, 697 (CA9 1969); United States v. Ruggeiro, 425 F.2d 1069, 1070 (CA9 1970), petition for certiorari pending sub nom. Kyriaco v. United States, No. 448, O.T.1970. 15 Wild v. United States, 362 F.2d, a......
-
United States v. Schoeberlein
...v. Rose, 344 F.2d 416, 418 (1 Cir. 1965); United States v. Ruggeiro, 300 F.Supp. 968, 972 (C.D.Cal.1969), aff'd per curiam, 425 F.2d 1069, 1071 (9 Cir. 1970). Self-Incrimination The Fifth Amendment provides, in pertinent part, that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a ......
-
United States v. Schmidt
...v. Held, 6 Cir. 1970, 435 F.2d 1361, 1366, cert. denied, 1971, 401 U.S. 1010, 91 S.Ct. 1255, 28 L.Ed.2d 545; United States v. Ruggeiro, 9 Cir. 1970, 425 F.2d 1069, 1071, cert. denied, 1971, 401 U.S. 922, 91 S.Ct. 863, 27 L.Ed.2d 826; United States v. Ahmanson, 9 Cir. 1969, 415 F.2d 785, 787......
-
Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp.
...in face of the taxpayer's contention that it should only be forced to provide printouts from the tapes. In United States v. Ruggeiro (9th Cir.1970) 425 F.2d 1069, 1070-1071, the court held that the words "relevant or material" have a broader connotation in reference to an Internal Revenue S......