RYAN
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the government need not show probable cause for its examination of taxpayer records when enforcing a summons.
An IRS agent issued a summons for taxpayer records. The taxpayer refused to produce them, claiming the agent lacked grounds to suspect fraud and had n…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Irs Summons Enforcement cases and more on FLexlaw
Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the Court.
In August 1961, Internal Revenue Agent Whelan issued a summons to taxpayer Ryan ordering him to pro-ducé his books for the years 1942 through 1953 inclusive. Ryan appeared but refused to produce the records, claiming that because tax liability for those years was long since barred except for fraud,1 the agent had no right to examine the records unless he could show grounds for suspecting fraud.
The Government then instituted an enforcement proceeding in a federal district court pursuant to § 7402 (b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.2 The complaint alleged that on the basis of estimated net worth calculations the agent' strongly suspected fraud, and that examination of the records for the years in question was relevant and material in determining its existence. The taxpayer answered, putting the question of probable cause in issue, and, in addition, stating that he had not received the letter required by § 7605 (b) informing him that the Secretary or his delegate had determined the examination to be necessary.3
At the hearing the District Judge clearly indicated his opinion that the Government need not show probable cause for suspecting fraud, and ordered Ryan to produce those records which he had available. Although the hearing confirmed Ryan’s assertion that no “necessity letter” had been sent to him, the judge made no mention of this, probably because counsel did not press the point.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, 320 F. 2d 500, on the theory that no full-scale showing of probable cause need be made. Except for the records relating to the year 1945, which appeared to have been once previously examined, the court ruled that no necessity letter was required by § 7605 (b) because the Government had made no previous examination of those years.!
We granted certiorari, 376 U. S.. 904, on the only issue raised by petitioner, whether the Government must show probable cause for its examination of the records.4 On that issue we sustain the judgment of the Court oT Appeals for the reasons given in United States v. Powell, decided today, ante, p. 48.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Golderg concur in the result, because they believe that through the testimony of Internal Revenue Agent Whelan a sufficient showing was made that the Government was not proceeding capriciously in this case.
Mr. Justice Douglas dissents for the reasons given in his separate opinion in United States v. Powell, ante, p. 59.
I. R. C., § 6501. See United States v. Powell, decided today, ante, p. 48, at p. 49, note 2.
See id., at p. 52, note 10.
See id., at p. 52.
The propriety of the court’s interpretation of the necessity letter requirement of § 7605 (b) is, therefore, not before us. See Trailmobile Co. v. Whirls, 331 U. S. 40, 48.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Greene v. State, 238 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1970)…226 (1936). . Younghans v. State, 90 So. 2d 308 (Fla.1956). . Floyd v. State, 79 So. 2d 778 (Fla.1955). . See eases listed in Annots., 19 A.L.R. 807 (1922), 77 A.L.R. 1235 (1932), and 45 A.L.R. 458 (1926). . See, e. g., Bowman v. United States, 85 S.Ct. 232, 13 L.Ed.2d 171 (1964); Sellers v. Georgia, 374 F. 2d 84 (5th Cir. 1967) ; United States ex rel. Fink v. Heyd, 408 F. 2d 7 (5th Cir. 1969) ; United States ex rel. Klein v. Deegan, 290 F.Supp. 66 (D.C.N.Y.1968). See also Federal Rule of Criminal Proc…
-
Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517 (U.S. 1971)…it said that there would be no difference should the witness indicate “that he would voluntarily turn the papers over.” Ten months later the Court decided United States v. Powell, 379 U. S. 48 (1964), and its companion case, Ryan v. United States, 379 U. S. 61 (1964). These concerned, respectively, internal revenue summonses issued to the' president of a corporate taxpayer and to an individual' taxpayer with respect to re-examinatipns and tax years for which assessments would be barred except for fraud. T…
-
United States v. Thompson, 452 F.2d 1333 (D.C. Cir. 1971)…rights of a criminal defendant are in some sense the most basic of all, since what is at stake is no less than the freedom to be free. Appellant does not argue that he has a constitutional right to bail pending appeal. See Bowman v. United States, 85 S.Ct. 232, 13 L.Ed.2d 171 (1964) (Mr. Justice Douglas, sitting as Circuit Justice); United States ex rel. Smith v. Prasse, E.D.Pa., 277 F.Supp. 391, 392 (1967); United States ex rel. Fink v. Heyd, E.D.La., 287 F.Supp. 716, 717 (1968). But the right to bail is…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Trailmobile Co. v. Whirls, 331 U.S. 40 (U.S. 1947)
- United States v. Bayard Edward Ryan, 320 F.2d 500 (6th Cir. 1963)
- Ryan v. United States, 376 U.S. 904 (U.S. 1964)