26 U.S.C. § 7210
Failure to obey summons
Any person who, being duly summoned to appear to testify, or to appear and produce books, accounts, records, memoranda, or other papers, as required under sections 6420(e)(2), 6421(g)(2), 6427(j)(2), 7602, 7603, and 7604(b), neglects to appear or to produce such books, accounts, records, memoranda, or other papers, shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with costs of prosecution.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1957–2021 · leading case: Robert L. Schulz v. Internal Revenue Serv. & Anthony Roundtree, 413 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2005).
Robert L. Schulz v. Internal Revenue Serv. & Anthony Roundtree, 413 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2005). “ummons through the federal courts, those subject to the proposed order must be given a reasonable opportunity to contest the government’s request; 3) if a federal court grants a government request for an order of enforcement then any individual subject to that order must be…”
Samuel C. Brody v. United States, 243 F.2d 378 (1st Cir. 1957). “Here, Brody’s failure to respond to the summons issued by the Internal Revenue Service under § 7602 may have been independently criminal, under 26 U.S.C. § 7210 , but it was not a contempt in the presence of the court within the meaning of 18 U.”
In re Burr, 171 F. Supp. 448 (S.D.N.Y. 1959). “Nevertheless, Burr might be excused from personal appearance if, as he says, such appearance would necessarily cause him grave physical harm or imperil his life.”
United States v. Hefti, 879 F.2d 311 (8th Cir. 1989). “13 Likewise there is no merit in appellants’ contention that a civil contempt fine of $38,000 is invalid because it exceeds the $1000 criminal fine prescribed by 26 U.S.C. § 7210 for failure to comply with a summons.”
United States v. Carter Fam. Trust, 602 F. Supp. 82 (N.D. Ind. 1985). “A failure to comply will result in a fine, imprisonment or both, together with the costs of prosecution, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7210 . SO ORDERED.”
Daley v. Weinberger, 400 F. Supp. 1288 (E.D.N.Y 1975). “2d 459 (1964) (good faith refusal to honor an internal revenue service summons would be a defense to a prosecution under 26 U.S.C. § 7210 ). 6 Similarly, in Anheuser-Busch, Inc.”
In re Enf't of Subpoenas to John Doe Corporations A, B, C, D & E, 489 A.2d 182 (Pa. 1985). “Based on its analysis of the interdependent summons enforcement scheme in the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. §§ 7210 , 7402 and 7604, Reisman seems to us to require a meaningful opportunity to object to the substance of the subpoena before the contempt process begins.”
United States v. Becker, 259 F.2d 869 (2d Cir. 1958). “Accordingly defendant’s conviction under 26 U.S.C. § 7210 is affirmed.”
In re Colton, 291 F.2d 487 (2d Cir. 1961). “” Finally, Section 7210, 26 U.S.C.A. § 7210 , provides that any person who, being duly summoned “as required under sections * * 7602, 7603, and 7604(b), neglects to appear or to produce such books, accounts, records, memoranda, or other papers, shall, upon conviction thereof, be…”
United States v. Parvathi Sivanadiyan (11th Cir. 2021). “Background In October 2014, Sivanadiyan pleaded guilty to failing to obey an IRS summons, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7210 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 . In exchange for her guilty plea, the government agreed to dismiss the charges pending against her in another criminal case where she was…”
United States v. Parvathi Sivanadiyan (11th Cir. 2021). “§ 3571 (b)(5) authorizes a fine of up to $100,000 for a Class A misdemeanor, like Sivanadiyan’s crime, and overrides the fine provision in 26 U.S.C. § 7210 , which provides that a person who fails to obey a summons “shall .”
Cook v. United States, 387 F. Supp. 1103 (D. Nev. 1974). “He also alleges that Special Agent Smith has obtained, or is seeking to obtain, this information by extortion and threats of criminal prosecution under the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 and 26 U.S.C. § 7210 . Cook claims that these checks, accounts and records, and the information…”
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.