United States v. Tsukuno, 72 C 418.
Decision Date | 21 April 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 72 C 418.,72 C 418. |
Citation | 341 F. Supp. 839 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America and Richard Thalman, Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service, Petitioners, v. Harold H. TSUKUNO, Respondent, and Ken Eto, Intervenor. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Shelley Waxman, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., for petitioners.
Anna R. Lavin, Chicago, Ill., for respondent.
Edward J. Calihan, Jr., Chicago, Ill., for intervenor.
This action was initiated by the United States by a petition requesting an order to respondent Tsukuno directing him to show cause why he should not comply with an Internal Revenue Service (hereinafter "IRS") summons issued by petitioner Thalman, a Special Agent of IRS, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402(b) and 7604(a). The order was entered February 22, 1972 with directions to the parties to brief the legal issues.
The summons directed Tsukuno, an accountant, to produce certain records and documents in his possession in connection with an investigation of the tax liabilities of intervenor Ken Eto. The items described in the summons may be generally divided into two categories: (1) workpapers developed and used by Tsukuno in the preparation of Eto's tax returns, and (2) the personal books and records of Eto used by, and still in the possession of, Tsukuno.
Tsukuno and Eto urge two reasons why this Court should not order Tsukuno to comply with the summons—the Illinois statutory accountant-client privilege and the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 110½, § 51, provides that:
"A public accountant shall not be required by any court to divulge information or evidence which has been obtained by him in his confidential capacity as a public accountant."
In United States v. Balistrieri, 403 F.2d 472, 481 (7th Cir.), vacated on other grounds, 395 U.S. 710, 89 S.Ct. 2032, 23 L.Ed.2d 654 (1969), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that in a federal criminal tax prosecution federal law applies, and because there is no accountant-client privilege in the federal system, the Illinois statute is inapplicable. Although the present case merely involves the enforcement of a summons, Balistrieri appears to state the applicable rule. Although state laws creating privileges are substantive and have been followed in diversity cases, Palmer v. Fisher, 228 F.2d 603, 608 (7th Cir. 1955), it is well-settled that questions of privilege in a federal income tax investigation are controlled by federal law. Colton v. United States, 306 F.2d 633, 636 (2d Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 951, 83 S.Ct. 505, 9 L.Ed.2d 499 (1963); Falsone v. United States, 205 F.2d 734, 742 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 346 U.S. 864, 74 S.Ct. 703, 98 L.Ed. 375 (1953); United States v. Schoeberlein, 335 F.Supp. 1048, 1057 n. 13 (D.Md. 1971); Dorfman v. Rombs, 218 F.Supp. 905, 907 (N.D.Ill.1963). Compliance with the Revenue Service summons cannot therefore be withheld on the basis of the Illinois accountant-client privilege.
Although it did not involve the same issue and facts as the instant case, Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517, 91 S.Ct. 534, 27 L.Ed.2d 580 (1971) is illuminating. In that case, an IRS agent issued summonses to the taxpayer's former employer and its accountant for the production of their records of his compensation. The intervening taxpayer's argument that an IRS summons proceeding may not be utilized in aid of an investigation that has the potentiality of resulting in a recommendation of criminal prosecution was rejected, the Court stating:
400 U.S. 523, 91 S.Ct. 534, 538 emphasis added. The Court endorsed the Court of Appeals' statement in Donaldson:
418 F.2d 1213, 1214 (5th Cir. 1969) emphasis in original. The clear implication of the statements above which distinguish Donaldson from cases such as the instant one where the records sought belong to the taxpayer, or in which he had some "proprietary interest," is that the taxpayer may assert his Fifth Amendment privilege to prevent their production by his lawyer or accountant.
Petitioners argue that the privilege was lost when the accountant received the intervenor's records, relying in part on Johnson v. United States, 228 U.S. 457, 458, 33 S.Ct. 572, 57 L.Ed. 919 (1913). It is inapposite, however, because there the defendant's books had passed by operation of law to his trustee in bankruptcy and he therefore no longer had any proprietary interest in them. The government's reliance on Bouschor v. United States, 316 F.2d 451, 458-59 (8th Cir. 1963) is also misplaced. At best, that case says that the respondent accountant could not assert the taxpayer's constitutional right against production; here, the intervening taxpayer himself has personally asserted that right.
The petitioner relies chiefly on United States v. Couch, 449 F.2d 141 (4th Cir. 1971), cert. granted, 405 U.S. 1038, 92 S. Ct. 1311, 31 L.Ed.2d 579 (April 3, 1972) and United States v. Schoeberlein, 335 F.Supp. 1048 (D.Md.1971). Couch held that requiring an accountant to produce taxpayer's records did not violate the taxpayer's privilege against self-incrimination because she had voluntarily relinquished control of the records. 449 F.2d at 143. Relying on Couch, the Schoeberlein court held that:
"... a person whose personal records are in the possession of another may not ordinarily, by invoking the Fifth Amendment, bar production by the other of the incriminating evidence."
Another line of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Schmidt
...But cf. Couch v. United States, 1973, 409 U.S. 322, 338-44, 93 S.Ct. 611, 34 L.Ed.2d 548 (Douglas, J., dissenting); United States v. Tsukuno, N.D.Ill.1972, 341 F.Supp. 839, or any accounting workpapers pertaining to him. See United States v. Bowman, M.D.Pa. 1964, 236 F.Supp. 548, aff'd, 3 C......
-
In re Grand Jury Proceedings
...at 468. See also Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517, 530-531, 91 S.Ct. 534, 27 L.Ed.2d 580, 589 (1971); United States v. Tsukuno, 341 F.Supp. 839, 842 (N.D.Ill.1972). However, the subpoena used by the Government in this case does not result in a loss of individual constitutional right......
-
U. S v. Tsukuno
...F.2d 1406U. S.v.Tsukuno72-1420UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Seventh Circuit6/21/73 N.D.Ill.E.D., 341 F.Supp. 839 REVERSED AND ...
-
Tax Fraud Investigations-recent Supreme Court Developments
...United States v. Balistrieri, 403 F.2d 472 (7th Cir. 1968), vacated on other grounds, 395 U.S. 710 (1969); United States v. Tsukuno, 341 F.Supp. 839 (N.D. 111., 1972); United States v. Schoeberlein, 335 F.Supp. 1048 (D.Md., 1971). 12. United States v. Kovel, 296 F.2d 918 (2nd Cir. 1961). Th......