United States of Am. & Robert L. Amick, Revenue Agent, Internal Revenue Serv. v. Harland W. French, 567 F.2d 351 (8th Cir. 1978). · Go Syfert
United States of Am. & Robert L. Amick, Revenue Agent, Internal Revenue Serv. v. Harland W. French, 567 F.2d 351 (8th Cir. 1978). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Fritz (ohnd, 1983-07-28)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Fritz
N.D. Ohio · 1983 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. French, 442 F.Supp. 166 (N.D.Iowa 1977), aff’d, 567 F.2d 351 (8th Cir.1978) and United States v. Will, 527 F.Supp. 361 (S.D.Ohio 1980) where Fourth and Fifth Amendment arguments against the production of documents being sought pursuant to an IRS summons were rejected.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America and Robert L. Amick, Revenue Agent, Internal Revenue Service, Appellees,
v.
Harland W. FRENCH, Appellant
77-1666.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Jan 18, 1978.
567 F.2d 351
Harland W. French, pro se., Evan L. Hultman, U. S. Atty., Sioux City, Iowa, M. Carr Ferguson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Gilbert E. Andrews, Crombie J. D. Garrett, and Ronald A. Dweck, Attorneys, Tax. Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., on brief, for appellees.
Heaney, Stephenson, Henley.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published
[*352] PER CURIAM.

Harland W. French appeals from an order of the District Court requiring him to comply with an Internal Revenue summons for the production of documents relating to his 1974 return. French challenged the summons on the grounds that it violated his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. A hearing was held before a magistrate, who recommended an order directing compliance with the summons. After a de novo review in which the District Court examined the relevant documents in camera, it sustained the magistrate’s findings and ordered compliance with the summons.

The District Court held that French failed to show potential incrimination or that the government was preparing a criminal case against him. It also found that the Internal Revenue Service carried its burden for enforcement of the summons and that the information sought was relevant and reasonable for the investigative purpose.

We have carefully reviewed the record and briefs and we affirm on the basis of the District Court’s opinion. United States v. French, 442 F.Supp. 166 (N.D.Iowa 1977).