26 C.F.R. § 601.107

Criminal investigation functions

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) General. Each district has a Criminal Investigation function whose mission is to encourage and achieve the highest possible degree of voluntary compliance with the internal revenue laws by: Enforcing the statutory sanctions applicable to income, estate, gift, employment, and certain excise taxes through the investigation of possible criminal violations of such laws and the recommendation (when warranted) of prosecution and/or assertion of the 50 percent ad valorem addition to the tax; developing information concerning the extent of criminal violations of all Federal tax laws (except those relating to alcohol, tobacco, narcotics, and firearms); measuring the effectiveness of the investigation process; and providing protection of persons and of property and other enforcement coordination as required.

(b) Investigative procedure. (1) A witness when questioned in an investigation conducted by the Criminal Investigation Division may have counsel present to represent and advise him. Upon request, a copy of an affidavit or transcript of a question and answer statement will be furnished a witness promptly, except in circumstances deemed by the Regional Commissioner to necessitate temporarily withholding a copy.

(2) A taxpayer who may be the subject of a criminal recommendation will be afforded a district Criminal Investigation conference when he requests one or where the Chief, Criminal Investigation Division, makes a determination that such a conference will be in the best interests of the Government. At the conference, the IRS representative will inform the taxpayer by a general oral statement of the alleged fraudulent features of the case, to the extent consistent with protecting the Government's interests, and, at the same time, making available to the taxpayer sufficient facts and figures to acquaint him with the basis, nature, and other essential elements of the proposed criminal charges against him.

(c) Processing of cases after investigation. The Chief, Criminal Investigation Division, shall ordinarily notify the subject of an investigation and his authorized representative, if any, when he forwards a case to the Regional Counsel with a recommendation for prosecution. The rule will not apply if the case is with a United States Attorney.

[33 FR 17235, Nov. 21, 1968, as amended at 38 FR 9227, Apr. 12, 1973; 39 FR 8917, Mar. 7, 1974; 43 FR 53029, Nov. 15, 1978]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases, 1974–2004 · leading case: United States v. LaSalle Nat'l Bank, 437 U.S. 298 (1978).
United States v. LaSalle Nat'l Bank, 437 U.S. 298 (1978). · cites it 10× “Apart from the control of his immediate supervisor, the agent's final recommendation is reviewed by the district chief of the Intelligence Division, 26 CFR §§ 601.107 (b) and (c) (1977); Internal Revenue Manual, ch.”
David Einhorn v. Charles O. Dewitt, Dist. Dir. Internal Revenue Serv., 618 F.2d 347 (5th Cir. 1980). · cites it 10× “HATCHETT, Circuit Judge: Taxpayers sought injunctive and mandamus relief based upon taxpayers’ interpretation of 26 C.F.R. § 601.107 (b)(2) as imposing upon the Internal Revenue Service a mandatory obligation to disclose requested information in a criminal investigation.”
United States v. Roderick J. MacKenzie Malcolm L. MacKenzie & David H. MacKenzie Inc., 777 F.2d 811 (2d Cir. 1986). “But at the time of the April 11, 1980, memorandum, which was, after all, only a recommendation, the decision to prosecute appellants had only gone to the District Director; the Regional Counsel’s office had not approved the bringing of criminal charges, as required by 26 C.”
Jimmie J. & Bonnie M. Ward v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue Serv., 784 F.2d 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). “26 C.F.R. § 601.107 (b)(2). Because section 601.”
United States v. Frank H. Leidendeker, 779 F.2d 1417 (9th Cir. 1986). · cites it 2× “1980); 26 C.F.R. § 601.107 (b)(2) (1985). 2 Leidendeker does not claim that he requested an administrative conference and there is no evidence in the record that he ever made such a request.”
Lorenza Short & Mamie O. Short v. James G. Murphy, Special Agent, Internal Revenue Serv., 512 F.2d 374 (6th Cir. 1975). “107 (b)(2), establishes the following procedure for pre-indictment conferences: Every person who may be the subject of a recommendation for prosecution shall be given an opportunity to explain his participation in the alleged criminal violation prior to the submission of the…”
United States of Am. & L. J. Marberry, Revenue Agent v. Robert J. Awerkamp, 497 F.2d 832 (7th Cir. 1974). “Thus in Donaldson where the summons was issued by agents of the IRS Intelligence Division which is responsible for enforcement of the criminal provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 C.F.R. § 601.107 (1973), the Supreme Court held that the summons was not outside the scope…”
United States v. Ladd, 471 F. Supp. 1150 (N.D. Tex. 1979). “The Intelligence Division enforces tax laws in part through enforcement of “the statutory sanctions applicable to income, estate, gift, employment, and certain excise taxes through the investigation of possible criminal violations of such laws and the recommendation (when…”
United States v. First Nat. State Bank of NJ, 469 F. Supp. 612 (D.N.J. 1979). “501 , and in the case of matters in the Intelligence Division, by 26 C.F.R. § 601.107 , the latter of which appears to apply here.”
John Doe Corp. v. Miller, 499 F. Supp. 378 (E.D.N.Y 1980). “26 C.F.R. § 601.107 (b)(2). That rule provides: “A taxpayer who may be the subject of a criminal recommendation will be afforded a district intelligence conference when he requests one or where the Chief, Intelligence Division, makes a determination that such a conference will…”
Pseudonym Taxpayer v. Miller, 497 F. Supp. 78 (D.N.J. 1980). “has failed, and should be compelled, to comply with the provisions of 26 C.F.R. § 601.107 (b)(2). It appears that taxpayer was aware that an investigation was being conducted in respect to his income taxes, and requested a conference under the regulation.”
Cont'l Elec. Co. v. Kurtz, 618 F.2d 350 (5th Cir. 1980). “HATCHETT, Circuit Judge: The Internal Revenue Service seeks relief from a preliminary injunction entered by the district court, which found that 26 C.F.R. § 601.107 (b)(2) imposes a mandatory duty upon the Internal Revenue Service to disclose requested information at a criminal…”
— 26 C.F.R. § 601.107(b)(2) — 1 case
Del Sandro v. United States, 483 F. Supp. 244 (W.D. Pa. 1980).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.