United States of Am. & Donald M. Cerra, Special Agent of the Internal Revenue Serv. v. John L. Beattie, Jr., 541 F.2d 329 (2d Cir. 1976). · Go Syfert
Search
United States of Am. & Donald M. Cerra, Special Agent of the Internal Revenue Serv. v. John L. Beattie, Jr., 541 F.2d 329 (2d Cir. 1976). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1983 · …read fisher and kasmir as detracting from the principle that the fifth amendment protects against compulsory production of a paper written by an accused with respect to his own affairs ... and now in his possession ... at p. 331 ✓
43 citation events across 16 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In Re Dr. John Doe, M.D., a Witness Before the January 1982 Additional Grand Jury. Dr. John Doe, M.D. v. United States (ca2, 1983-06-29)
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978 2002 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Dr. John Doe, M.D., a Witness Before the January 1982 Additional Grand Jury. Dr. John Doe, M.D. v. United States (2×)
2d Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
We did not "read Fisher and Kasmir as detracting from the principle that the Fifth Amendment protects against compulsory production of a paper written by an accused with respect to his own affairs ... and now in his possession ..." United States v. Beattie II, 541 F.2d 329, 331 (2 Cir.1976).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In re Doe
S.D.N.Y. · 1982 · confidence medium
See In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated April 23, 1981, 657 F.2d 5 , 8 n. 1 (2d Cir.1981); United States v. Beattie, 541 F.2d 329, 331 (2d Cir.1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Grand Jury Subpoenas Addressed to Sentinel Financial Instruments
S.D.N.Y. · 1982 · confidence medium
Beilis, supra, 417 U.S. at 87-88 , 94 S.Ct. at 2182 ; Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated April 23, 1981 Witness v. United States, 657 F.2d 5 , 8 n. 1 (2d Cir.1981); United States v. Beattie, 541 F.2d 329, 331 (2d Cir.1976).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In the Matter of Grand Jury Empanelled March 19, 1980 United States of America
3rd Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
N.Y.1981); United States v. Beattie, 541 F.2d 329, 331 (2d Cir. 1976). 9 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated April 23, 1981 Witness v. United States (2×)
2d Cir. · 1981 · confidence medium
United States v. Beattie, 541 F.2d 329, 331 (2d Cir. 1976). .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Superior Court of Maricopa County (2×) also: Cited "see"
Ariz. · 1981 · confidence medium
See, e. g., In re Grand Jury Proceedings United States, supra; United States v. Beattie, supra; see also, United States v. Plesons, supra. It is not relevant that the letters have been read by others, that they were sent to another with apparently no desire to have them returned or even that the letters could be authenticated by some other means than through mention of Wayman’s compliance with the subpoena. 4 In re Grand Jury Proceedings United States, supra, at 1056-1057; United States v. Beattie, supra at 331.
discussed Cited "see" In Re Grand Jury Proceedings, Subpoenas for Documents
8th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Beattie, 522 F.2d 267, 268 (2d Cir.1975), vacated, 425 U.S. 967 , 96 S.Ct. 2163 , 48 L.Ed.2d 791 , cert. denied, 425 U.S. 970 , 96 S.Ct. 2165 , 48 L.Ed.2d 793 , modified, 541 F.2d 329 (1976) (subpoena requiring the production of accountant’s workpapers used in the preparation of tax returns).
cited Cited "see" In Re Fairbanks
Bankr. D.N.H. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Beattie, 541 F.2d 329 (2d Cir.1976); United States v. Helina, 549 F.2d 713 (9th Cir.1977).
discussed Cited "see" Biller v. Lopes
D. Conn. · 1987 · signal: accord · confidence high
Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum v. U.S., 657 F.2d 5, 6 (2d Cir. 1981) (citing Beilis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85, 87 , 94 S.Ct. 2179, 2182 , 40 L.Ed.2d 678 (1974)). “[A] corporate representative, acting in his or her representative capacity, cannot claim a fifth amendment privilege against the production of corporate documents____ The only exception to this rule may occur when an individual is personally compelled to produce and authenticate corporate records, and those acts are self-incriminatory.” In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Issued to Thirteen Corporations, 775 F.2d 43, 46 (2d Cir.1985)…
discussed Cited "see" United States of America and Mary Jane Sciascia, Revenue Agent v. Dr. Martin Fox
2d Cir. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
It concluded that compliance with a document subpoena may require “incriminating testimony” in two situations: (1) if the existence and location of the subpoenaed papers are unknown to the government, then the taxpayer's compelled production of those documents “tacitly concedes the existence of the papers demanded and their possession or control by the taxpayer,” id. at 410 , 96 S.Ct. at 1581 ; see In re Katz, 623 F.2d 122, 126 (2d Cir. 1980); United States v. Praetorius, 622 F.2d 1054, 1062-63 (2d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 860 , 101 S.Ct. 162 , 66 L.Ed.2d 76 (1980); In re Gran…
cited Cited "see" United States v. Willis
S.D. Iowa · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Beattie, 541 F.2d 329, 331 (2d Cir.1976).
cited Cited "see" In Re Grand Jury Proceedings United States of America, in Re Grand Jury Proceedings Hector G. Rodriguez Martinez
1st Cir. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Beattie, 541 F.2d 329 (2d Cir. 1976); United States v. Helina, 549 F.2d 713 (9th Cir. 1977).
cited Cited "see" In Re Grand Jury Proceedings. Appeal of Dr. Milton Shiffman
6th Cir. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Beattie, 522 F.2d 267 (2d Cir. 1975), vacated, 425 U.S. 967 , 96 S.Ct. 2163 , 48 L.Ed.2d 791 (1976), modified, 541 F.2d 329 (1976).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Served Upon Doe
S.D.N.Y. · 1979 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e. g., United States v. Beattie, 541 F.2d 329, 331 (2d Cir. 1976); United States v. Plesons, 560 F.2d 890 (8th Cir. 1977); In re Bernstein, 425 F.Supp. 37 (D.C.Fla.1977); In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Served Upon John Doe, M— 11-188 (S.D.N.Y.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America and Donald M. Cerra, Special Agent of the Internal Revenue Service, Petitioners-Appellees,
v.
John L. BEATTIE, Jr., Respondent-Appellant
1305, Docket 75-6041.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Sep 13, 1976.
541 F.2d 329
1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 7147
Sydney R. Rubin, Rochester, N. Y., for respondent-appellant., Scott P. Crampton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Gilbert E. Andrews, Jr., Robert E. Lindsay, Daniel F. Ross, Attys., Tax Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C. (Richard J. Arcara, U. S. Atty., W. D. N. Y., Buffalo, N. Y., of counsel), for petitioners-appellees.
Moore, Friendly, Van Graafeiland.
Cited by 33 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Our opinion in this case, filed on August 18, 1975, 522 F.2d 267, generally affirmed an order of the District Court for the Western District of New York enforcing an Internal Revenue Service summons directing taxpayer Beattie despite his claim of self-incrimination to produce various papers described in the summons, 522 F.2d at 268, which papers he had retrieved from his accountant, Arthur Robeson. [1] We held, however, 522 F.2d at 279, that

Insofar as the summons requests copies of any communications between Beattie and Robeson, it should not be enforced, and we modify the order to so provide.

Both Beattie and the Government petitioned for certiorari. After rendering its decisions on the closely related problem raised in Fisher v. United States and United States v. Kasmir, 425 U.S. 391, 96 S.Ct. 1569, 48 L.Ed.2d 39 (1976), the Court on May 19, 1976, 425 U.S. 967, 970, 96 S.Ct. 2163, 2165, 48 L.Ed.2d 791, 793, denied Beattie’s petition for certiorari but granted the Government’s and remanded the case to this court for further consideration in light of the cited decisions. On July 1, 1976, we entered an order reciting that we thought it apparent that the only issue the Court desired us to reconsider was the point we had “decided against the Government, namely, the modification of the order to exclude copies of any communications between Beat-tie and Robeson.” We invited the parties to submit memoranda on that issue.

All original workpapers of Arthur Robeson, C.P.A. which are in your possession and were used in the preparation of Form 1040 U. S. Individual Income Tax Return of John L. Beattie, Jr. and Margaret Beattie for the years 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972 consisting of but not limited to the following: trial balances, balance sheet, adjusting entries, closing entries, workpapers, notes, memorandums and any correspondence used in the preparation of the aforementioned returns.

The Fisher summons had not demanded copies of correspondence, 425 U.S. at-, 96 S.Ct. at 1572. The summons in Kasmir sought, inter alia, “[Retained copies of reports and other correspondence” between the accountants and the taxpayer. While the Court ordered this portion of the summons enforced along with the rest, it made the following caveat, 425 U.S. at 413 n. 13, 96 S.Ct. at 1582 n. 13:

In seeking the accountant’s “retained copies” of correspondence with the taxpayer in [Kasmir], we assume that the summons sought only “copies” of original letters sent from the accountants to the taxpayer — the truth of the contents of which could be testified to only by the accountant.

Kasmir shows that so much of our previous decision as refused enforcement of the summons with respect to Robeson’s retained copies of letters from him to Beattie was in error. The open question is whether the same conclusion follows with respect to letters from Beattie to Robeson of which Beattie had regained possession. That point was not at issue and consequently was not decided in Fisher or Kasmir, as the quoted footnote underlines. We think the rationale of the Court’s opinion calls for upholding the privilege as to the taxpayer’s[*331] own letters — unless, as the Government has not argued and the Court has not decided, -U.S. at-, 96 S.Ct. at 1582, the Fifth Amendment does not “shield the taxpayer from producing his own tax records” repossessed from an accountant.

By producing his own letters to the accountant, the taxpayer would be authenticating them as fully as if he were producing his retained copies. We do not read Fisher and Kasmir as detracting from the principle that the Fifth Amendment protects against compulsory production of a paper written by an accused with respect to his own affairs, contrast Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 361, 378, 31 S.Ct. 538, 55 L.Ed. 771 (1911), and now in his possession, even though he may have previously sent it to another with the expectation that the latter would retain it.

We therefore modify our previous order so that the summons will be enforced except with respect to any memoranda or correspondence from Beattie to Robeson.

1

. The description was as follows: