Time: Thu May 29 22:22:24 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA12682; Thu, 29 May 1997 22:12:17 -0700 (MST) by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA25583; Thu, 29 May 1997 22:12:08 -0700 (MST) Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 22:17:14 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: U.S. v. Argomaniz (2 of 2) (fwd) >Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 00:35:31 -0400 >From: "Dr. Braces" <drbraces@smart1.net> >Organization: SouthFlorida Orthodontics >To: pmitch@primenet.com >Subject: us v argo part 2 > >-- > [4] *1355 We stress, however, that it is the role of the district > court, not the taxpayer, to evaluate the taxpayer's claim of >incrimination and > determine whether it is reasonable. "The witness is not exonerated >from > answering merely because he declares that in so doing he would >incriminate > himself--his say-so does not of itself establish the hazard of >incrimination. > It is for the court to say whether his silence is justified...." >Hoffman v. > United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486, 71 S.Ct. 814, 818, 95 L.Ed. 1118 >(1951). See > also Sharp, 920 F.2d at 1170 ("Whether there is sufficient hazard of > incrimination is of course a question for the courts asked to enforce >the > privilege."). > [5] In this case, the district court did opine that Argomaniz would >have a > legitimate fear of criminal indictment if he complied with the IRS >summons. In > its order granting Argomaniz's motion for a stay of enforcement of the >summons > pending this appeal, the district court stated that Argomaniz had >"shown more > than a generalized fear of criminal prosecution" and had "good reason >to > believe that his answers may tend to incriminate him...." [FN12] >Although this > finding does suggest that Argomaniz was entitled to raise his fifth >amendment > privilege, it does not sufficiently determine the applicability of >Argomaniz's > privilege against self-incrimination to the summons at issue in this >case. "A > court must make a particularized inquiry, deciding, in connection with >each > specific area that the questioning party wishes to explore, whether or >not the > privilege is well-founded." United States v. Melchor Moreno, 536 F.2d >1042, > 1049 (5th Cir.1976). See United States v. Rue, 819 F.2d 1488 (8th > Cir.1987). > > FN12. See supra note 6. > > [6] The district court must review Argomaniz' assertions of the >privilege on > a question-by-question basis. This will best be accomplished in an in >camera > proceeding wherein Argomaniz is given the opportunity to substantiate >his > claims of the privilege and the district court is able to consider the > questions asked and the documents requested by the summons. See United > States v. Roundtree, 420 F.2d 845, 852 (5th Cir.1969) ("The district >court may > then determine by reviewing ... [the taxpayer's] records and by >considering > each question whether, in each instance, the claim of >self-incrimination is > well-founded."). [FN13] The district court already has determined that > Argomaniz does face a real and substantial hazard of incrimination. >However, > we must remand this case to the district court, to enable that court to >conduct > an in camera proceeding, on a question-by-question basis, to determine >the > actual extent to which Argomaniz may rely on his fifth amendment >privilege to > avoid compliance with the IRS summons. Stated differently, the >district court > must ascertain: first, whether the taxpayer has the records sought >and, > second, whether under the existing circumstances they are >incriminatory. > > FN13. As the Second Circuit observed in Estate of Fisher v. > Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 905 F.2d 645, 650 (2d Cir.1990), >similar > in camera proceedings have been repeatedly looked upon with favor >by the > Supreme Court. See also In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 831 F.2d 225, >226 > (11th Cir.1987) (directing the district court to conduct either a >hearing > or an in camera inspection on a document-by-document basis to >ascertain the > applicability of the attorney-client privilege). > > B. The Fifth Amendment Privilege May Exist > Even though compliance could be incriminating, the government argues > that Argomaniz must comply with the IRS summons because Argomaniz did >not > properly invoke his fifth amendment privilege. First, the government >claims > that the fifth amendment is not applicable to this situation because >the > contents of business records are not privileged. Second, the >government > asserts that Argomaniz made an impermissible blanket claim of self- > incrimination. Both of these arguments are without merit. > [7][8] The government correctly states that the contents of >voluntarily > prepared business records are not protected by the fifth amendment >privilege > against self-incrimination. See United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605, >610-12, > 104 S.Ct. 1237, 1241-42, *1356 79 L.Ed.2d 552 (1984). However, >Argomaniz is > not invoking his privilege as to the contents of the documents >described in the > IRS summons, but as to the act of producing the documents. The Supreme >Court > "has emphasized that the mere act of producing documents whose contents >were > not privileged could be sufficiently testimonial and incriminating in >nature to > trigger the fifth amendment privilege." In re Grand Jury No. 86-3 >(Will > Roberts Corp.), 816 F.2d 569, 571 (11th Cir.1987) (citing United States >v. > Doe, 465 U.S. 605, 104 S.Ct. 1237, 79 L.Ed.2d 552 (1984) and Fisher v. > United States, 425 U.S. 391, 96 S.Ct. 1569, 48 L.Ed.2d 39 (1976)). To >be > testimonial, a "communication must itself, explicitly or implicitly, >relate a > factual assertion or disclose information," Doe v. United States, 487 >U.S. > 201, 210, 108 S.Ct. 2341, 2347, 101 L.Ed.2d 184 (1988); it must "add >... to > the sum total of the government's information...." Fisher v. United >States, > 425 U.S. 391, 411, 96 S.Ct. 1569, 1581, 48 L.Ed.2d 39 (1975). > By producing documents in compliance with the IRS summons, Argomaniz >would be > establishing the existence and authenticity of the documents listed in >the > summons, as well as verifying that these documents were in his >possession. > Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201, 209, 108 S.Ct. 2341, 2347, 101 >L.Ed.2d > 184 (1987). He would actually be informing the government that he had >income > in the years in question yet failed to file income tax returns. This >act of > production would be sufficiently testimonial and incriminating to >activate > Argomaniz's fifth amendment privilege. > [9] The government's final argument, that there was no fifth amendment > justification for Argomaniz's blanket invocation of the privilege >against self- > incrimination, is also without merit. It is true that a blanket >refusal to > produce records or to testify will not support a fifth amendment claim. > United States v. Roundtree, 420 F.2d 845, 852 (5th Cir.1969). However, > Argomaniz did not refuse to comply with the summons in a blanket >manner. > Instead, Argomaniz followed the general rule that a taxpayer "must >present > himself with his records for questioning, and as to each question and >each > record elect to raise or not to raise the defense." Id. Argomaniz >answered > the non-incriminating questions posed by the IRS officer, and, in >response to > each incriminating question or document request refused to answer and >cited his > privilege against self-incrimination. When the IRS officer realized >that > Argomaniz would raise the privilege in response to each of her document > requests and to each of her questions concerning Argomaniz's tax >liability for > the years in question, the IRS officer terminated the interview. [FN14] > Argomaniz could not respond to questions that he was not asked. Thus, >the > effect of the interview was as if the IRS officer had asked all >relevant > questions and for each document listed in the summons, and Argomaniz >had > responded by repeatedly raising his fifth amendment privilege in >response. > Under the circumstances in this case, a blanket invocation of the >privilege > against self-incrimination did not occur. > > FN14. See supra footnote 5 for the pertinent transcript of >Argomaniz's > appearance before the IRS officer. > > III. CONCLUSION > Because compliance with the IRS summons could violate Argomaniz's >fifth > amendment privilege against self-incrimination and because the district >court > failed to make a particularized inquiry necessary to determine whether > Argomaniz properly refused to comply with the summons, we REVERSE the >district > court's order compelling Argomaniz to comply with the summons. We >REMAND this > matter to the district court with instructions to determine, through an >in > camera inspection, the existence of Argomaniz's fifth amendment >privilege in > this case. > REVERSED and REMANDED. >END OF DOCUMENT > > > > > >With Love, Liberty and Justice for All, >Alex >http://www.drbraces.com >e-mail: drbraces@drbraces.com > >"When the people fear their government you have tyranny. >When the government fears the People, you have liberty." > Thomas Jefferson > >Liberty is NEVER an option... only a condition to be lost! > > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.2 on Intel 586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ========================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail