United States v. Stuart
| Decision Date | 28 February 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-1064,87-1064 |
| Citation | 109 S.Ct. 1183,489 U.S. 353,103 L.Ed.2d 388 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES, Petitioner v. Philip George STUART, Sr., et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Articles XIX and XXI of the 1942 Convention Respecting Double Taxation (1942 Convention) between the United States and Canada require the United States, upon request and consistent with United States revenue laws, to obtain and convey information to Canadian authorities to assist them in determining a Canadian taxpayer's income tax liability. Respondent Canadian citizens and residents maintained accounts in a bank in the United States. In attempting to ascertain their Canadian income tax liability for certain years, the Canadian Department of National Revenue (Revenue Canada), pursuant to Articles XIX and XXI, requested the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to provide pertinent bank records. After the IRS Director of Foreign Operations concluded that the requests fell within the 1942 Convention's scope and that it would be appropriate for the United States to honor them, the IRS served on the bank administrative summonses for the requested information, but, at respondents' request, the bank refused to comply. Respondents then petitioned the Federal District Court to quash the summonses, c ntending that because under 26 U.S.C. § 7602(c) the IRS may not issue a summons to further its investigation of a United States taxpayer when a Justice Department referral for possible criminal prosecution is in effect and because Revenue Canada's investigation of respondents was "a criminal investigation, preliminary stage," United States law proscribed the use of a summons to obtain information for Canadian authorities regarding respondents' American bank accounts. This argument was rejected, and the District Court ordered the bank to comply with the summonses. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that before the IRS may honor a request for information under the 1942 Convention it must determine that Revenue Canada's investigation has not reached a stage analogous to a Justice Department referral by the IRS and that here the affidavit submitted by the IRS failed to state that such a determination had been made with respect to Revenue Canada's investigation of respondents.
Held: Neither the 1942 Convention nor domestic legislation requires the IRS to attest that a Canadian tax investigation has not reached a stage analogous to a Justice Department referral by the IRS in order to obtain enforcement of a summons issued pursuant to a request by Canadian authorities under the 1942 Convention. So long as the IRS satisfies the requirements of good faith set forth in United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58, 85 S.Ct. 248, 254-255, 13 L.Ed.2d 112 that the investigation be conducted for and relevant to a legitimate purpose, that the information sought not be already in the IRS' possession, and that the statutorily required administrative steps have been followed—and complies with applicable statutes, it is entitled to enforcement of its summons, whether or not the Canadian tax investigation is directed towards criminal prosecution under Canadian law. Pp. 359-370.
(a) Aside from whether the 1942 Convention, in conjunction with 26 U.S.C. § 7602(c), narrows the class of legitimate purposes for which the IRS may issue an administrative summons, the IRS' affidavits plainly satisfied the requirements of good faith set forth in United States v. Powell, supra. Pp. 359-361.
(b) Section 7602(c) does not, by its terms, apply to the summonses challenged in this case, for its speaks only to investigation into possible violations of United States revenue laws, forbidding the issuance of a summons "if a Justice Department referral is in effect." Therefore, § 7602(c) does not itself appear to bar enforcement of the summonses in question. This conclusion is supported by § 7602(c)'s legislative history indicating that Congress did not intend to make enforcement of a treaty summons contingent upon the foreign tax investigation's not having reached a stage analogous to a Justice Department referral. The concerns that prompted Congress to enact § 7602(c) particularly that of preventing the IRS from encroaching upon the rights of potential criminal defendants—are not present when the IRS issues summonses at the request of most foreign governments conducting investigations into possible violations of their own tax laws. This is especially so where none of the countries, including Canada, with whom the United States has tax treaties providing for exchanges of information employ grand juries and criminal discovery procedures differ considerably among those countries. Pp. 361-365.
(c) Articles XIX and XXI of the 1942 Convention on their face do not support respondents' argument that because the IRS would not be able, under American law, to issue an administrative summons to gather information for use by the Government once a Justice Department referral was in effect, the IRS is not in a position to obtain such information once Canadian authorities have reached a corresponding stage in their investigation. Those Articles both refer to information that the IRS may obtain under American law, but that law does not contain the restriction respondents claim. Section 7 02(c) only limits the issuance of a summons when a Justice Department referral is in effect and says nothing about foreign officials' decisions to investigate possible violations of their countries' laws with a view to criminal prosecution outside the United States. The elements of good faith outlined in United States v. Powell, supra, do not constitute such a restriction, nor does the reasoning in United States v. LaSalle National Bank, 437 U.S. 298, 98 S.Ct. 2357, 57 L.Ed.2d 221, whose principal holding was codified in § 7602(c), favor respondents' position, since the provision of information to Canadian authorities could not curtail the rights of potential criminal defendants in this country by undermining American discovery rules or diminishing the grand jury's role. Moreover, the purpose behind Articles XIX and XXI the reduction of tax evasion by allowing signatories to demand information from each other—counsels against interpreting those provisions to limit inquiry in the manner respondents desire; the Government's regular compliance with Canadian authorities' requests for information without inquiring whether they intend to use the information for criminal prosecution weighs in favor of its reading of Articles XIX and XXI; and the result urged by respondents would contravene Congress' main reason for laying down an easily administrable test in § 7602(c). Pp. 365-370.
813 F.2d 243 (CA9 1987), reversed and remanded.
KENNEDY, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which O'CONNOR, J., joined, post, p. 370. SCALIA, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 371.
Lawrence G. Wallace, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Charles E. Peery, Seattle, Wash., for respondents.
Articles XIX and XXI of the Convention between the United States and Canada Respecting Double Taxation, Mar. 4, 1942, 56 Stat. 1405-1406, T.S. No. 983, oblige the United States, upon request and consistent with United States revenue laws, to obtain and convey information to Canadian authorities to assist them in determining a Canadian taxpayer's income tax liability. The question presented is whether the United States Internal Revenue Service may issue an administrative summons pursuant to a request by Canadian au- thorities only if it first determines that the Canadian tax investigation has not reached a stage analogous to a domestic tax investigation's referral to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution. We hold that neither the 1942 Convention nor domestic legislation imposes this precondition to issuance of an administrative summons. So long as the summons meets statutory requirements and is issued in good faith, as we defined that term in United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58, 85 S.Ct. 248, 254-255, 13 L.Ed.2d 112 (1964), compliance is required, whether or not the Canadian tax investigation is directed toward criminal prosecution under Canadian law.
Respondents are Canadian citizens and residents who maintained bank accounts with the Northwestern Commercial Bank in Bellingham, Washington. In attempting to ascertain their Canadian income tax liability for 1980, 1981, and 1982, the Canadian Department of National Revenue (Revenue Canada) asked the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in January 1984 to secure and provide pertinent bank records. Revenue Canada made its requests pursuant to Articles XIX and XXI of the 1942 Convention.1 The IRS Director of For- eign Operations—the "competent authority" under Article XIX concluded that Revenue Canada's requests fell within the scope of the Convention and that it would be appropriate for the United States to honor them. App. 27-28. Specifically, he found that "the reque ted information is not within the possession of the Internal Revenue Service or the Canadian tax authorities; that the requested information may be relevant to a determination of the correct tax liability of [respondents] under Canadian law; and that the same type of information can be obtained by tax authorities under Canadian law." Id., at 28. Thus, on April 2, 1984, the IRS served on Northwestern Commercial Bank administrative summonses for the requested information.
At respondents' behest, the bank refused to comply. In accordance with 26 U.S.C. § 7609(b)(2), respondents petitioned the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington to quash the summonses. Only one of their claims is before us. Respo...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. O'Shea, Miscellaneous Action No. 5:09-mc-00043.
...can show that the IRS is attempting to abuse the court's process." Conner, 434 F.3d at 680 (quoting United States v. Stuart, 489 U.S. 353, 353, 109 S.Ct. 1183, 103 L.Ed.2d 388 (1989)). In marked contrast to the burden placed on the Government, the taxpayer bears a heavy burden to prove an o......
-
Rodriguez v. Pan Am. Health Org.
...obvious meaning effects a result inconsistent with the intent or expectations of its signatories." United States v. Stuart , 489 U.S. 353, 365–66, 109 S.Ct. 1183, 103 L.Ed.2d 388 (1989) (quoting Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc. v. Avagliano, 457 U.S. 176, 180, 102 S.Ct. 2374, 72 L.Ed.2d 765 (19......
-
Itel Containers International Corporation v. Huddleston
...rights which may be claimed under it, the more liberal interpretation is to be preferred.' " United States v. Stuart, 489 U.S. 353, 368, 109 S.Ct. 1183, 1192, 103 L.Ed.2d 388 (1989), quoting Bacardi Corp. of America v. Domenech, 311 U.S. 150, 163, 61 S.Ct. 219, 225, 85 L.Ed. 98 (1940); see ......
-
Haitian Centers Council, Inc. v. McNary
...use principles analogous to those that guide us in the task of construing statutes. Cf. United States v. Stuart, 489 U.S. 353, 371, 109 S.Ct. 1183, 1194, 103 L.Ed.2d 388 (1989) (Scalia, J., concurring) (if "the Treaty's language resolves the issue presented, there is no necessity of looking......
-
Supreme Court Grapples With Showing Required For Evidentiary Hearing Before Summons Enforcement
...summons. Sections 7402(b), 7604(a). Congress intended summons enforcement proceedings to "be summary in nature," United States v. Stuart, 489 U.S. 353, 369 (1989); it did not "intend[] the courts to oversee the [IRS'] determinations to investigate," United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 56 ......
-
District Court Grants Evidentiary Hearing In Dispute Over IRS Use Of Private Firm In Microsoft Audit
...26 C.F.R. § 301.7602-1T(b)(3). 41 See United States v. Clarke, __ U.S. __, 134 S.Ct. 2361, 2367 (2014) (quoting United States v. Stuart, 489 U.S. 353, 369 42 Id. 43 Microsoft filed a supplemental brief regarding the recent Tax Court decision in Altera Corp. v. Commissioner, 145 T.C. No. 3 (......
-
Supreme Court Elaborates On Contesting IRS Summonses
...faith. The Court's decision in United States v. Clarke, No. 13-301 (2014), expands on its previous decision in United States v. Stuart, 489 U.S. 353, 359 (1989), that the IRS "need only demonstrate good faith in issuing the summons." In an opinion that attempts to balance taxpayers' rights ......
-
Enforcing Non-US Tax Authority Requests For Taxpayer Information
...if the IRS did not exactly abide by the administrative requirements, the good-faith standard for enforcement could still be satisfied). 489 US 353 Section 7602(c) as enacted when Stuart was decided was re-designated as the current Section 7602(d). Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and ......
-
The Charming Betsy Canon, American Legal Doctrine, and the Global Rule of Law.
...Deference, supra note 93, at 705. (217.) Medellin, 552 U.S. at 507 (quoting Zicherman, 516 U.S. at 226); see also United States v. Stuart, 489 U.S. 353, 365-66 (1989); Choctaw Nation v. United States, 318 U.S. 423, 431-32 (218.) Nat'l Cable & Telecomm. Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Servs., ......
-
Justice Antonin Scalia, Constitutional Discourse, and the Legalistic State
...v. Providence journal Co., 108 S. Ct. 1502 (1988).United States v. Richardson, 702 F.2d 1079 (D.C. Cir. 1983).United States v. Stuart, 109 S. Ct. 1183 (1989).United States v. Taylor, 108 S Ct. 2413 (1988).United States Department of Justice v. ,julian, 108 S. Ct. 1606 (1988).Walton v. Arizo......
-
TREATY OVERRIDE: THE FALSE CONFLICT BETWEEN WHITNEY AND COOK.
...U.S. 317, 332 (1912) ("[T]reaties are the subject of careful consideration before they are entered"). (168.) See United States v. Stuart, 489 U.S. 353, 371-77 (1989) (Sca-lia, J., (169.) Section 6139 of TAMRA, enacted on November 10, 1988, raises interesting questions in this context. Techn......
-
Does immunity mean impunity? The legal and political battle of household workers against trafficking and exploitation by their foreign diplomat employers.
...(61) Gov't Statement, Sabbithi, supra note 48, at 5; Gov't Statement, Gonzalez Paredes, supra note 59, at 2. (62) United States v. Smart, 489 U.S. 353, 369 (1989) (quoting Sumitomo Shoji Am., Inc. v. Avagliano, 457 U.S. 176, 184-85 (1982)). (63) 877 F. Supp. 285 (E.D.Va. 1995), aff'd, 73 F.......