CA11: IRS summons to bank would be enforced; the summons was reasonable under the 4A: info sought was reasonable and narrowly tailored, and it was to a bank

The district court did not err in enforcing the IRS summons under 26 U.S.C.S. § 7602 to the taxpayers’ bank because the taxpayers did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the financial records held by the bank. The taxpayers were not entitled to relief under the Right to Financial Privacy Act, 12 U.S.C.S. §§ 3401-3422 because, even if they had not presented the argument too late, the statute in 12 U.S.C.S. § 3413(c) explicitly excluded the Internal Revenue Code provisions. The summons were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment because they sought relevant information and were narrowly tailored. The IRS was not required to issue John Doe summons under 26 U.S.C.S. § 7609(f) where the subjects of the investigation were named and received notice. Presley v. United States, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 19832 (11th Cir. July 18, 2018). See Daily Report: 11th Circuit: IRS May Demand Law Firm’s Escrow, Trust Account Info.

While defendant was handcuffed and in a police car, all the other factors of lack of intimidation etc. show that defendant voluntarily consented to a search of his backpack. United States v. Carr, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 20202 (8th Cir. July 20, 2018).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Subpoenas / Nat'l Security Letters, Third Party Doctrine. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.