26 U.S.C. § 7609

Special procedures for third-party summonses

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 26 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Notice(1) In general

If any summons to which this section applies requires the giving of testimony on or relating to, the production of any portion of records made or kept on or relating to, or the production of any computer software source code (as defined in 7612(d)(2)) with respect to, any person (other than the person summoned) who is identified in the summons, then notice of the summons shall be given to any person so identified within 3 days of the day on which such service is made, but no later than the 23rd day before the day fixed in the summons as the day upon which such records are to be examined. Such notice shall be accompanied by a copy of the summons which has been served and shall contain an explanation of the right under subsection (b)(2) to bring a proceeding to quash the summons.

(2) Sufficiency of notice

Such notice shall be sufficient if, on or before such third day, such notice is served in the manner provided in section 7603 (relating to service of summons) upon the person entitled to notice, or is mailed by certified or registered mail to the last known address of such person, or, in the absence of a last known address, is left with the person summoned. If such notice is mailed, it shall be sufficient if mailed to the last known address of the person entitled to notice or, in the case of notice to the Secretary under section 6903 of the existence of a fiduciary relationship, to the last known address of the fiduciary of such person, even if such person or fiduciary is then deceased, under a legal disability, or no longer in existence.

(3) Nature of summons

Any summons to which this subsection applies (and any summons in aid of collection described in subsection (c)(2)(D)) shall identify the taxpayer to whom the summons relates or the other person to whom the records pertain and shall provide such other information as will enable the person summoned to locate the records required under the summons.

(b) Right to intervene; right to proceeding to quash(1) Intervention

Notwithstanding any other law or rule of law, any person who is entitled to notice of a summons under subsection (a) shall have the right to intervene in any proceeding with respect to the enforcement of such summons under section 7604.

(2) Proceeding to quash(A) In general

Notwithstanding any other law or rule of law, any person who is entitled to notice of a summons under subsection (a) shall have the right to begin a proceeding to quash such summons not later than the 20th day after the day such notice is given in the manner provided in subsection (a)(2). In any such proceeding, the Secretary may seek to compel compliance with the summons.

(B) Requirement of notice to person summoned and to Secretary

If any person begins a proceeding under subparagraph (A) with respect to any summons, not later than the close of the 20-day period referred to in subparagraph (A) such person shall mail by registered or certified mail a copy of the petition to the person summoned and to such office as the Secretary may direct in the notice referred to in subsection (a)(1).

(C) Intervention; etc.

Notwithstanding any other law or rule of law, the person summoned shall have the right to intervene in any proceeding under subparagraph (A). Such person shall be bound by the decision in such proceeding (whether or not the person intervenes in such proceeding).

(c) Summons to which section applies(1) In general

Except as provided in paragraph (2), this section shall apply to any summons issued under paragraph (2) of section 7602(a) or under section 6420(e)(2), 6421(g)(2), 6427(j)(2), or 7612.

(2) ExceptionsThis section shall not apply to any summons—(A) served on the person with respect to whose liability the summons is issued, or any officer or employee of such person;(B) issued to determine whether or not records of the business transactions or affairs of an identified person have been made or kept;(C) issued solely to determine the identity of any person having a numbered account (or similar arrangement) with a bank or other institution described in section 7603(b)(2)(A);(D) issued in aid of the collection of—(i) an assessment made or judgment rendered against the person with respect to whose liability the summons is issued; or(ii) the liability at law or in equity of any transferee or fiduciary of any person referred to in clause (i); or(E)(i) issued by a criminal investigator of the Internal Revenue Service in connection with the investigation of an offense connected with the administration or enforcement of the internal revenue laws; and(ii) served on any person who is not a third-party recordkeeper (as defined in section 7603(b)).(3) John Doe and certain other summonses

Subsection (a) shall not apply to any summons described in subsection (f) or (g).

(4) Records

For purposes of this section, the term “records” includes books, papers, and other data.

(d) Restriction on examination of recordsNo examination of any records required to be produced under a summons as to which notice is required under subsection (a) may be made—(1) before the close of the 23rd day after the day notice with respect to the summons is given in the manner provided in subsection (a)(2), or(2) where a proceeding under subsection (b)(2)(A) was begun within the 20-day period referred to in such subsection and the requirements of subsection (b)(2)(B) have been met, except in accordance with an order of the court having jurisdiction of such proceeding or with the consent of the person beginning the proceeding to quash.(e) Suspension of statute of limitations(1) Subsection (b) action

If any person takes any action as provided in subsection (b) and such person is the person with respect to whose liability the summons is issued (or is the agent, nominee, or other person acting under the direction or control of such person), then the running of any period of limitations under section 6501 (relating to the assessment and collection of tax) or under section 6531 (relating to criminal prosecutions) with respect to such person shall be suspended for the period during which a proceeding, and appeals therein, with respect to the enforcement of such summons is pending.

(2) Suspension after 6 months of service of summonsIn the absence of the resolution of the summoned party’s response to the summons, the running of any period of limitations under section 6501 or under section 6531 with respect to any person with respect to whose liability the summons is issued (other than a person taking action as provided in subsection (b)) shall be suspended for the period—(A) beginning on the date which is 6 months after the service of such summons, and(B) ending with the final resolution of such response.
(f) Additional requirement in the case of a John Doe summonsAny summons described in subsection (c)(1) which does not identify the person with respect to whose liability the summons is issued may be served only after a court proceeding in which the Secretary establishes that—(1) the summons relates to the investigation of a particular person or ascertainable group or class of persons,(2) there is a reasonable basis for believing that such person or group or class of persons may fail or may have failed to comply with any provision of any internal revenue law, and(3) the information sought to be obtained from the examination of the records or testimony (and the identity of the person or persons with respect to whose liability the summons is issued) is not readily available from other sources.The Secretary shall not issue any summons described in the preceding sentence unless the information sought to be obtained is narrowly tailored to information that pertains to the failure (or potential failure) of the person or group or class of persons referred to in paragraph (2) to comply with one or more provisions of the internal revenue law which have been identified for purposes of such paragraph.(g) Special exception for certain summonses

A summons is described in this subsection if, upon petition by the Secretary, the court determines, on the basis of the facts and circumstances alleged, that there is reasonable cause to believe the giving of notice may lead to attempts to conceal, destroy, or alter records relevant to the examination, to prevent the communication of information from other persons through intimidation, bribery, or collusion, or to flee to avoid prosecution, testifying, or production of records.

(h) Jurisdiction of district court; etc.(1) Jurisdiction

The United States district court for the district within which the person to be summoned resides or is found shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any proceeding brought under subsection (b)(2), (f), or (g). An order denying the petition shall be deemed a final order which may be appealed.

(2) Special rule for proceedings under subsections (f) and (g)

The determinations required to be made under subsections (f) and (g) shall be made ex parte and shall be made solely on the petition and supporting affidavits.

(i) Duty of summoned party(1) Recordkeeper must assemble records and be prepared to produce records

On receipt of a summons to which this section applies for the production of records, the summoned party shall proceed to assemble the records requested, or such portion thereof as the Secretary may prescribe, and shall be prepared to produce the records pursuant to the summons on the day on which the records are to be examined.

(2) Secretary may give summoned party certificate

The Secretary may issue a certificate to the summoned party that the period prescribed for beginning a proceeding to quash a summons has expired and that no such proceeding began within such period, or that the taxpayer consents to the examination.

(3) Protection for summoned party who discloses

Any summoned party, or agent or employee thereof, making a disclosure of records or testimony pursuant to this section in good faith reliance on the certificate of the Secretary or an order of a court requiring production of records or the giving of such testimony shall not be liable to any customer or other person for such disclosure.

(4) Notice of suspension of statute of limitations in the case of a John Doe summons

In the case of a summons described in subsection (f) with respect to which any period of limitations has been suspended under subsection (e)(2), the summoned party shall provide notice of such suspension to any person described in subsection (f).

(j) Use of summons not required

Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the Secretary’s ability to obtain information, other than by summons, through formal or informal procedures authorized by sections 7601 and 7602.

(Added Pub. L. 94–455, title XII, § 1205(a), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1699; amended Pub. L. 95–599, title V, § 505(c)(6), Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2760; Pub. L. 95–600, title VII, § 703(l)(4), Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2943; Pub. L. 96–223, title II, § 232(d)(4)(E), Apr. 2, 1980, 94 Stat. 278; Pub. L. 97–248, title III, §§ 311(b), 331(a)–(d), 332(a), Sept. 3, 1982, 96 Stat. 601, 620, 621; Pub. L. 97–424, title V, § 515(b)(12), Jan. 6, 1983, 96 Stat. 2182; Pub. L. 98–369, div. A, title VII, § 714(i), title IX, § 911(d)(2)(G), July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 962, 1007; Pub. L. 98–620, title IV, § 402(28)(D), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3359; Pub. L. 99–514, title VI, § 656(a), title XV, § 1561(a), (b), title XVII, § 1703(e)(2)(G), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2299, 2761, 2778; Pub. L. 100–647, title I, §§ 1015(l)(1), (2), 1017(c)(9), (12), Nov. 10, 1988, 102 Stat. 3571, 3572, 3576, 3577; Pub. L. 104–168, title X, § 1001(a), July 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 1467; Pub. L. 105–206, title III, § 3415(a)–(c), July 22, 1998, 112 Stat. 755; Pub. L. 109–135, title IV, § 408(a), Dec. 21, 2005, 119 Stat. 2635; Pub. L. 116–25, title I, § 1204(a), July 1, 2019, 133 Stat. 988.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 7609 was renumbered section 7613 of this title.

Amendments

2019—Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 116–25 inserted concluding provisions.

2005—Subsec. (c)(2)(D) to (F). Pub. L. 109–135, § 408(a)(1), inserted “or” at end of subpar. (D), substituted period for “; or” at end of subpar. (E), and struck out subpar. (F) which read as follows: “described in subsection (f) or (g).”

Subsec. (c)(3), (4). Pub. L. 109–135, § 408(a)(2), added par. (3) and redesignated former par. (3) as (4).

1998—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 105–206, § 3415(a), reenacted heading without change and in text substituted “If any summons to which this section applies requires the giving of testimony on or relating to, the production of any portion of records made or kept on or relating to, or the production of any computer software source code (as defined in 7612(d)(2)) with respect to, any person (other than the person summoned) who is identified in the summons, then” for “If—

“(A) any summons described in subsection (c) is served on any person who is a third-party recordkeeper, and

“(B) the summons requires the production of any portion of records made or kept of the business transactions or affairs of any person (other than the person summoned) who is identified in the description of the records contained in the summons,

then”.

Subsec. (a)(3). Pub. L. 105–206, § 3415(c)(1), redesignated par. (5) as (3), substituted “subsection (c)(2)(D)” for “subsection (c)(2)(B)”, and struck out heading and text of former par. (3). Text read as follows: “For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘third-party recordkeeper’ means—

“(A) any mutual savings bank, cooperative bank, domestic building and loan association, or other savings institution chartered and supervised as a savings and loan or similar association under Federal or State law, any bank (as defined in section 581), or any credit union (within the meaning of section 501(c)(14)(A));

“(B) any consumer reporting agency (as defined under section 603(d) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a(f)));

“(C) any person extending credit through the use of credit cards or similar devices;

“(D) any broker (as defined in section 3(a)(4) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(4)));

“(E) any attorney;

“(F) any accountant;

“(G) any barter exchange (as defined in section 6045(c)(3));

“(H) any regulated investment company (as defined in section 851) and any agent of such regulated investment company when acting as an agent thereof; and

“(I) any enrolled agent.”

Subsec. (a)(4). Pub. L. 105–206, § 3415(c)(1), struck out heading and text of par. (4). Text read as follows: “Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any summons—

“(A) served on the person with respect to whose liability the summons is issued, or any officer or employee of such person,

“(B) to determine whether or not records of the business transactions or affairs of an identified person have been made or kept, or

“(C) described in subsection (f).”

Subsec. (a)(5). Pub. L. 105–206, § 3415(c)(1), redesignated par. (5) as (3).

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 105–206, § 3415(c)(2), reenacted heading without change and amended text generally, substituting present provisions for provisions which had: in par. (1) declared a general rule of including within subsection summons issued under sections 6420(e)(2), 6421(g)(2), 6427(j)(2), or 7602(a)(2); in par. (2) set forth exceptions where summons was solely to determine identity of person having a numbered account, or was in aid of collection of liability of person against whom assessment or judgment had been made, or his transferee or fiduciary; and in par. (3) defined “records” and declared that summons requiring testimony about records would be treated as summons requiring production of such records.

Subsec. (e)(2). Pub. L. 105–206, § 3415(c)(3), substituted “summoned party’s response to the summons” for “third-party recordkeeper’s response to the summons described in subsection (c), or the summoned party’s response to a summons described in subsection (f)”.

Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 105–206, § 3415(c)(4)(A), substituted “subsection (c)(1)” for “subsection (c)” in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (f)(3). Pub. L. 105–206, § 3415(c)(4)(B), inserted “or testimony” after “records”.

Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 105–206, § 3415(c)(5), substituted “A summons is described in this subsection if” for “In the case of any summons described in subsection (c), the provisions of subsections (a)(1) and (b) shall not apply if”.

Subsec. (i). Pub. L. 105–206, § 3415(c)(6)(A), struck out “third-party recordkeeper and” after “Duty of” in heading.

Subsec. (i)(1). Pub. L. 105–206, § 3415(c)(6)(B), substituted “to which this section applies for the production of records, the summoned party” for “described in subsection (c), the third-party recordkeeper”.

Subsec. (i)(2). Pub. L. 105–206, § 3415(c)(6)(C), substituted “summoned party” for “recordkeeper” in heading and “the summoned party” for “the third-party recordkeeper” in text.

Subsec. (i)(3). Pub. L. 105–206, § 3415(c)(6)(D), substituted “summoned party” for “recordkeeper” in heading and amended text of par. (3) generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “Any third-party recordkeeper, or agent or employee thereof, making a disclosure of records pursuant to this section in good-faith reliance on the certificate of the Secrtetary or an order of a court requiring production of records shall not be liable to any customer or other person for such disclosure.”

Subsec. (j). Pub. L. 105–206, § 3415(b), added subsec. (j).

1996—Subsec. (a)(3)(I). Pub. L. 104–168 added subpar. (I).

1988—Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 100–647, § 1017(c)(12), made technical correction to language of Pub. L. 99–514, § 1703(e)(2)(G), see 1986 Amendment note below.

Pub. L. 100–647, § 1017(c)(9), substituted “6421(g)(2)” for “6421(f)(2)”.

Subsec. (e)(2). Pub. L. 100–647, § 1015(l)(1), inserted “or the summoned party’s response to a summons described in subsection (f),” after “the summons described in subsection (c),” and substituted “the summons is issued” for “the summons is issued other”.

Subsec. (i). Pub. L. 100–647, § 1015(l)(2)(B), inserted “and summoned party” after “recordkeeper” in heading.

Subsec. (i)(4). Pub. L. 100–647, § 1015(l)(2)(A), substituted “the summoned party” for “the third-party recordkeeper”.

1986—Subsec. (a)(3)(H). Pub. L. 99–514, § 656(a), added subpar. (H).

Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 99–514, § 1703(e)(2)(G), as amended by Pub. L. 100–647, § 1017(c)(12), substituted “6427(j)(2)” for “6427(i)(2)”.

Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 99–514, § 1561(a), amended subsec. (e) generally, designating existing provisions as par. (1), inserting heading, and adding par. (2).

Subsec. (i)(4). Pub. L. 99–514, § 1561(b), added par. (4).

1984—Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 98–369, § 714(i), substituted “7602(a)” for “7602”.

Pub. L. 98–369, § 911(d)(2)(G), substituted “6427(i)(2)” for “6427(h)(2)”.

Subsec. (h)(3). Pub. L. 98–620 struck out par. (3) which had provided that except as to cases the court considered to be of greater importance, proceedings brought for the enforcement of any summons, or proceedings under this section, and appeals, would take precedence on the docket over all other cases and would be assigned for hearing and decided at the earliest practicable date.

1983—Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 97–424 struck out “6424(d)(2),” after “6421(f)(2),”.

1982—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 97–248, § 331(d)(1), substituted “the 23rd day” for “the 14th day”, and substituted “an explanation of the right under subsection (b)(2) to bring a proceeding to quash the summons” for “directions for staying compliance with the summons under subsection (b)(2)” at the end.

Subsec. (a)(3)(G). Pub. L. 97–248, § 311(b), added subpar. (G).

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 97–248, § 331(a), (d)(2), substituted “right to proceeding to quash” for “right to stay compliance” in heading, and in par. (2) substituted “Proceeding to quash” for “Right to stay compliance” as par. (2) heading, designated former undesignated matter as subpar. (A), in (A) as so designated substituted provisions giving persons entitled to notice 20 days to begin a proceeding to quash, for provisions giving persons entitled to notice the right to stay compliance if they complied with the provisions of former subpars. (A) and (B) within 14 days, and inserted provision that the Secretary may seek to compel compliance with the summons, struck out former subpar. (A) which provided that notice to the person summoned not to comply with the summons be given in writing, in subpar. (B) substituted provisions that copies of the petition in the proceeding to quash the summons be mailed within the 20-day period, for provisions that copies of the notice not to comply with the summons be mailed, and added subpar. (C).

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 97–248, § 331(b), substituted in par. (1) provision that, no examination of records be made before the close of the 23rd day after the notice of summons, for provision that the examination may not be made before the end of the former 14-day period allowed for notice to be given to the person summoned not to comply, and in par. (2) substituted “where a proceeding under subsection (b)(2)(A) was begun within the 20-day period referred to in such subsection and the requirements of subsection (b)(2)(B) have been met,” for “when the requirements of subsection (b)(2) have been met,” and “of the court having jurisdiction of such proceeding or with the consent of the person beginning the proceeding to quash” for “issued by a court of competent jurisdiction authorizing examination of such records or with the consent of the person staying compliance”.

Subsec. (h). Pub. L. 97–248, § 331(c), inserted “; etc.” after “court” in heading, in par. (1) added heading and substituted “any proceeding” for “proceedings” after “determine”, substituted “subsection (b)(2), (f), or (g)” for “subsections (f) or (g)”, designated former second sentence of par. (1) as par. (2) and added heading, redesignated former par. (2) as (3) and in par. (3) as so redesignated, added heading and substituted “all other cases” for “all cases”.

Subsec. (i). Pub. L. 97–248, § 332(a), added subsec. (i).

1980—Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 96–223 substituted “6427(h)(2)” for “6427(g)(2)”.

1978—Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 95–600 which purported to substitute “6427(f)(2)” for “6427(e)(2)” was not executed in view of the amendment made by Pub. L. 95–599. See below.

Pub. L. 95–599 substituted “6427(g)(2)” for “6427(e)(2)”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2019 Amendment

Pub. L. 116–25, title I, § 1204(b), July 1, 2019, 133 Stat. 989, provided that: “The amendments made by this section [amending this section] shall apply to summonses served after the date that is 45 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [July 1, 2019].”

Effective Date of 2005 Amendment

Pub. L. 109–135, title IV, § 408(b), Dec. 21, 2005, 119 Stat. 2635, provided that: “The amendments made by this section [amending this section] shall take effect as if included in section 3415 of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 [Pub. L. 105–206].”

Effective Date of 1998 Amendment

Pub. L. 105–206, title III, § 3415(d), July 22, 1998, 112 Stat. 756, provided that: “The amendments made by this section [amending this section] shall apply to summonses served after the date of the enactment of this Act [July 22, 1998].”

Effective Date of 1996 Amendment

Pub. L. 104–168, title X, § 1001(b), July 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 1468, provided that: “The amendment made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall apply to summonses issued after the date of the enactment of this Act [July 30, 1996].”

Effective Date of 1988 Amendment

Pub. L. 100–647, title I, § 1015(l)(3), Nov. 10, 1988, 102 Stat. 3572, provided that: “The amendments made by this subsection [amending this section] shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act [Nov. 10, 1988].”

Amendment by section 1017(c)(9), (12) of Pub. L. 100–647 effective, except as otherwise provided, as if included in the provision of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99–514, to which such amendment relates, see section 1019(a) of Pub. L. 100–647, set out as a note under section 1 of this title.

Effective Date of 1986 Amendment

Pub. L. 99–514, title VI, § 656(b), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2299, provided that: “The amendment made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall apply to summonses served after the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 22, 1986].”

Pub. L. 99–514, title XV, § 1561(c), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2761, provided that: “The amendments made by this section [amending this section] shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 22, 1986].”

Amendment by section 1703(e)(2)(G) of Pub. L. 99–514 applicable to gasoline removed (as defined in section 4082 of this title, as amended by section 1703 of Pub. L. 99–514) after Dec. 31, 1987, see section 1703(h) of Pub. L. 99–514, set out as a note under section 4081 of this title.

Effective Date of 1984 Amendments

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–620 not applicable to cases pending on Nov. 8, 1984, see section 403 of Pub. L. 98–620, set out as an Effective Date note under section 1657 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Amendment by section 714(i) of Pub. L. 98–369 effective as if included in the provision of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, Pub. L. 97–248, to which such amendment relates, see section 715 of Pub. L. 98–369, set out as a note under section 31 of this title.

Amendment by section 911(d)(2)(G) of Pub. L. 98–369 effective Aug. 1, 1984, see section 911(e) of Pub. L. 98–369, set out as a note under section 6427 of this title.

Effective Date of 1983 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–424 applicable with respect to articles sold after Jan. 6, 1983, see section 515(c) of Pub. L. 97–424, set out as a note under section 34 of this title.

Effective Date of 1982 Amendment

Pub. L. 97–248, title III, § 311(c)(2), Sept. 3, 1982, 96 Stat. 601, provided that: “The amendments made by subsection (b) [amending this section] shall apply to summonses served after December 31, 1982.”

Pub. L. 97–248, title III, § 331(e), Sept. 3, 1982, 96 Stat. 621, provided that: “The amendments made by this section [amending this section] shall apply to summonses served after December 31, 1982.”

Pub. L. 97–248, title III, § 332(b), Sept. 3, 1982, 96 Stat. 622, provided that: “The amendment made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall apply to summonses served after December 31, 1982.”

Effective Date of 1980 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 96–223 effective Jan. 1, 1979, see section 232(h)(2) of Pub. L. 96–223, set out as a note under section 6427 of this title.

Effective Date of 1978 Amendments

Amendment by Pub. L. 95–600 effective Oct. 4, 1976, see section 703(r) of Pub. L. 95–600, set out a note under section 46 of this title.

Amendment by Pub. L. 95–599 effective Jan. 1, 1979, see section 505(d) of Pub. L. 95–599, set out as a note under section 6427 of this title.

Effective Date

Pub. L. 94–455, title XII, § 1205(c), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1703, as amended by Pub. L. 94–528, § 2(b), Oct. 17, 1976, 90 Stat. 2483, provided that: “The amendments made by this section [enacting this section and section 7610 of this title] shall apply with respect to any summons issued after February 28, 1977.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 480 cases (46 in the last 5 years), 1965–2026 · leading case: Kimberly Gaetano v. United States, 994 F.3d 501 (6th Cir. 2021).
Kimberly Gaetano v. United States, 994 F.3d 501 (6th Cir. 2021). · cites it 12× “Alleging the summons was issued in bad faith, the Gaetanos brought this action to quash the summons under 26 U.S.C. § 7609 . The district court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the Gaetanos lacked standing.”
Haber v. United States, 823 F.3d 746 (2d Cir. 2016). · cites it 5× “” 26 U.S.C. § 7609 (c)(2)(D). In a declaration attached to the government’s motion to dismiss, the Revenue Officer declared that the summons was to “aid in the collection of [Haber’s] .”
Michael Presley v. United States, 895 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir. 2018). · cites it 5× “But where, as here, the IRS issues a summons to a third-party recordkeeper to gather information about a taxpayer, the IRS must notify the taxpayer of the summons pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7609 (a). To guard against potential abuses of this "broad" power, the courts-and not the…”
McCammon v. United States, 569 F. Supp. 2d 78 (D.D.C. 2008). · cites it 18× “The special procedures applicable to third-party IRS summons are set forth in 26 U.S.C. § 7609 . Generally speaking, the IRS may “issue a summons to any third-party recordkeeper requiring the production of records and documents in its possession relating to a specific taxpayer’s…”
Liberty Fin. Servs. & First Capital Sec., Inc. v. United States, 778 F.2d 1390 (1st Cir. 1985). · cites it 7× “In conjunction with this investigation, the IRS served a third-party recordkeeping summons on Wells Fargo Bank, pursuant to the provisions of 26 U.S.C. § 7609 (1976), naming Liberty in the summons.”
Godwin v. United States, 564 F. Supp. 1209 (D. Del. 1983). · cites it 9× “Godwin (“taxpayer”), filed pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7609 (b), to quash ten Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) summonses 2 and the cross motion of the United States (“respondent”), filed under 26 U.”
Sheila Ann Ip v. United States of Am. Martin Lum, 205 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2000). · cites it 10× “ALDISERT, Circuit Judge: The issue on appeal is whether notice is required under 26 U.S.C. § 7609 (a) when the Internal Revenue Service summons a third-party record-keeper to produce financial records of a person who has no outstanding tax liability and who has no legal…”
Speidell v. United States, 978 F.3d 731 (10th Cir. 2020). · cites it 3× “The district court observed that the IRS issued summonses regarding 6 Speidell to MED on June 7, 2016, but Speidell did not file his petition to quash until July 29, 2016, missing the 20-day deadline set by 26 U.S.C. § 7609 (b)(2)(A). The district court determined that Speidell…”
Taylor v. USA, 292 F. App'x 383 (5th Cir. 2008). · cites it 8× “On August 9, 2007, relying on 26 U.S.C. § 7609 (b)(2), the Taylors filed a petition to quash the IRS’s summons.”
Lidas, Inc., a Delaware Corp. David Chelala Liliane Chelala v. United States, 238 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2001). · cites it 4× “On June 3, 1998, the Chelalas filed a complaint under 26 U.S.C. § 7609 (b)(2) to quash the summons, arguing, inter alia, that the Treaty was constitutionally void; that issuance of the summons violated various provisions of the Internal Revenue Code; that summary enforcement of…”
United States v. Lester Genser & Lawrence Forman, 582 F.2d 292 (3rd Cir. 1978). · cites it 4× “§ 7609 , added by the Tax Reform Act of 1976, which gives taxpayers the statutory right to stay voluntary compliance and intervene in enforcement proceedings, states that where the taxpayer “does not request the third party witness not to comply at this stage, he would still be…”
United States of Am. & Gerald R. Potocnak, Revenue Agent, Internal Revenue Serv. v. Pittsburgh Trade Exch. Inc. & Vincent E. Manella, 644 F.2d 302 (3rd Cir. 1981). · cites it 8× “1520 , 26 U.S.C. § 7609 (f). The Exchange contends that the court erred in several respects when it enforced the summons.”
United States v. Robert W. Ritchie, Personally & in His Capacity as a Partner/officer of Ritchie, Fels & Dillard, P.C., 15 F.3d 592 (6th Cir. 1994). · cites it 2× “We also note that it has been held that "the criteria in 26 U.S.C. § 7609 (f) governing ex parte issuance of a John Doe summons pursuant to 26 U.”
Jewell v. United States, 749 F.3d 1295 (10th Cir. 2014). · cites it 9× “The Administrative Steps in 26 U.S.C. § 7609 (a)(1) In 26 U.S.C. § 7609 , the Internal Revenue Code lists special procedures for the IRS’s summonses to third parties.”
United States v. Shivlock, 459 F. Supp. 1383 (D. Colo. 1978). · cites it 9× “These three consolidated cases are a part of the continuing saga of the headaches stemming from the enactment of the so-called third party record keepers statute, 26 U.S.C. § 7609 . See, United States v. Bank of Monte Vista, (D.”
Thomas M. Cook & Carol L. Cook v. United States, 104 F.3d 886 (6th Cir. 1997). · cites it 8× “Thé Cooks alleged that the summons should be quashed because notice thereof was served upon them one day out of rule dictated by 26 U.S.C. § 7609 (a). The trial court rejected the Cooks’ challenge, ruling inter alia that service of the I.”
Gerald J. Rapp & Mary H. Rapp v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 774 F.2d 932 (9th Cir. 1985). · cites it 3× “26 U.S.C. §§ 7609 (a) and (b). The Rapps contend that the Tax Court erred in denying their motion to suppress the notices of deficiency and Certificates of Assessments and Payments because the IRS failed to notify them of the issuance of two of the summonses.”
Wayne R. La Mura v. United States, 765 F.2d 974 (11th Cir. 1985). · cites it 4× “La Mura of the issuance of the summonses, in accordance with 26 U.S.C.A. § 7609 (a) (West Supp.1985). 1 In *977 response, La Mura petitioned the district court to quash the summons, as provided for in 26 U.”
Harper v. Werfel, 118 F.4th 100 (1st Cir. 2024). · cites it 5× “See 26 U.S.C. § 7609 (f). The district court dismissed Harper's complaint, concluding, as pertinent to his constitutional claims, that he lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in his Coinbase account information, and that Coinbase's records were not his property.”
United States v. Arthur Young & Co., 465 U.S. 805 (1984). · cites it 2× “3 Amerada intervened, as permitted by 26 U. S. C. § 7609 (b)(1). 4 The District Court found that Young’s tax accrual workpapers were relevant to the IRS investigation within the meaning of § 7602 and refused to recognize an accountant-client privilege that would protect the…”
Cranford v. United States, 359 F. Supp. 2d 981 (E.D. Cal. 2005). · cites it 6× “Cranford filed a petition to quash summons pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7609 (b)(2)(A). The petition alleges that on June 10, 2004, the United States, through the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue issued a summons addressed to American Express Travel Related Services (“American…”
Ungaro v. Desert Palace, Inc., 732 F. Supp. 1522 (D. Nev. 1989). · cites it 10× “Plaintiff argues that by responding to the IRS summons, Caesars: (a) violated 26 U.S.C. § 7609 (which establishes procedures for the IRS in issuing third-party tax summonses); (b) conspired and continued to conspire to violate that statute (cause of actions one and two); (c)…”
United States of Am. & Donald Jackson, Special Agent v. Charles H. Stuckey, & Morry Weinstein, Intervenor-Appellant, 646 F.2d 1369 (9th Cir. 1981). · cites it 4× “Weinstein exercised his right provided by 26 U.S.C. § 7609 by requesting that the third parties summoned not provide infor *1372 mation.”
Charles Hefti Marion Hefti v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue of the United States of Am., 983 F.2d 868 (8th Cir. 1993). · cites it 4× “No. 11 (filed July 31, 1991) (Docket No. 4447-88) (hereinafter supp.”
Bible Study Time, Inc. v. United States, 240 F. Supp. 3d 409 (D.S.C. 2017). · cites it 6× “(“BST”), initiated this action pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7609 (b)(2)(A) seeking to quash third-party summonses the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) served on eight banks: Carolina Alliance Bank, Capital Bank, N.”
United States v. Stuart, 489 U.S. 353 (1989). · cites it 2× “In accordance with 26 U. S. C. § 7609 (b)(2), respondents petitioned the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington to quash the summonses.”
United States v. Gary W. Bass, 784 F.2d 1282 (5th Cir. 1986). · cites it 7× “1 On appeal, Bass asserts seven points of error, 2 including (1) that the district court should not have instructed the jury that, as a matter of law, he was an “employee,” and (2) that the disclosure of his employment records was in violation of the notice provisions of 26…”
John H. Fortney v. United States, 59 F.3d 117 (9th Cir. 1995). · cites it 3× “Because we conclude that 26 U.S.C. § 7609 (a) does not require an attested copy of the summons be served on the taxpayer, we affirm.”
Seneca Resources Corp. v. Twp. of Highland, 863 F.3d 245 (3rd Cir. 2017). “2d 580 (1971), superseded on other grounds by 26 U.S.C. § 7609 as stated in Tiffany Fine Arts, Inc.”
Taylor Lohmeyer Law Firm v. United States, 957 F.3d 505 (5th Cir. 2020). · cites it 3× “A John Doe summons is “[a]ny summons described in [ 26 U.S.C. § 7609 (c)(1) (covered summonses)] which does not identify the person with respect to whose liability the summons is issued”.”
Kenneth J. Masat v. United States of Am. & Robert Solorio, Jr., Agent for the Internal Revenue Serv., 745 F.2d 985 (5th Cir. 1984). · cites it 4× “26 U.S.C. § 7609 (1954) (as amended 1982) provides in part: § 7609.”
United States v. Russell McLaughlin Jr., in No. 96-1982. United States of Am. v. Mark McLaughlin in No. 96-2000, 126 F.3d 130 (3rd Cir. 1997). · cites it 3× “See 26 U.S.C. § 7609 (a). The McLaughlins’ motion to suppress the evidence so obtained was denied by the district court.”
Paul Gluck & Ina Gluck v. United States of Am., Sidney Stein Stein & Stein Stein's Foot Specialties, Inc. v. United States, 771 F.2d 750 (3rd Cir. 1985). · cites it 3× “The IRS thereupon used information obtained from the grand jury materials as the basis for summonses to Franklin State Bank and First National State Bank-Edison in April 1983 seeking records necessary to determine the Gluck’s tax liability for the tax years 1979-81.”
Stewart v. United States, 511 F.3d 1251 (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 3× “On February 8, 2005, Morse and Jeanine filed a pro se petition in the district court to quash the summonses pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7609 (b)(2). The government con *1253 ceded to quashing the three summonses that identified Jeanine insofar as they related to her because Jeanine…”
Moore v. California State Bd. of Acct., 831 P.2d 798 (Cal. 1992). · cites it 2× “( 26 U.S.C. § 7609 .) In determining that an accountant who is "registerd, licensed, or certified under State law" falls under the definition of third party record keeper within the meaning of the treasury regulation, the Chen Chi Wang court relied on Hill, supra, 66 Cal.”
Polselli v. IRS, 598 U.S. 432 (2023). · cites it 2× “When the IRS issues a summons, it must generally provide notice to any person identi- fed in the summons, 26 U. S. C. § 7609 (a)(1). Anyone entitled to such notice may then bring a motion to quash the summons, § 7609(b)(2)(A).”
Viewtech, Inc. v. United States, 653 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2011). · cites it 3× “The taxpayer and third party argue that 26 U.S.C. § 7609 1 required the IRS to notify them, which would have enabled them to seek a court order quashing the summons.”
United States v. Richey, 632 F.3d 559 (9th Cir. 2011). “In order to ascertain “the correctness of any return,” the IRS may issue a summons for records and documents from third parties in connection with a tax liability investigation.”
Stephen Tornay, Galene Tornay v. United States of Am. A.R. Demeter, Special Agent, Internal Revenue Serv., 840 F.2d 1424 (9th Cir. 1988). · cites it 2× “The summons complied with the notice and procedure required by 26 U.S.C. § 7609 (a). Wayne failed to comply with the summons and continues to do so.”
Ross P. Upton v. Internal Revenue Serv. & Gloria A. Hassinger, United States of Am., Movant-Appellee, 104 F.3d 543 (2d Cir. 1997). · cites it 5× “” Upton concedes — indeed, he affirmatively alleges — that his son was not a “third-party recordkeeper,” but contends that the statutory grant of jurisdiction to review an administrative summons served on someone who is a third-party recordkeeper precludes by implication the…”
United States v. Hamilton Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 566 F. Supp. 755 (E.D.N.Y 1983). · cites it 8×
Uhrig v. United States, 592 F. Supp. 349 (D. Maryland 1984). · cites it 6×
Andrea Byers v. IRS, 963 F.3d 548 (6th Cir. 2020). · cites it 4×
Standing Akimbo, LLC v. United States, 955 F.3d 1146 (10th Cir. 2020).
Scotty's Contracting & Stone, Inc. v. United States, 326 F.3d 785 (6th Cir. 2003). · cites it 3×
Mollison v. United States, 568 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 4×
Harper v. Rettig, 46 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2022). · cites it 2×
United States v. Kemper Money Mkt. Fund, Inc., 704 F.2d 389 (7th Cir. 1983). · cites it 10×
Clay v. United States, 199 F.3d 876 (6th Cir. 1999). · cites it 9×
McCammon v. United States, 568 F. Supp. 2d 73 (D.D.C. 2008). · cites it 18×
John E. Codner v. United States, 17 F.3d 1331 (10th Cir. 1994). · cites it 2×
Konstantinos Moutevelis v. United States, 727 F.2d 313 (3rd Cir. 1984). · cites it 3×
United States v. Manchel, Lundy & Lessin, 477 F. Supp. 326 (E.D. Pa. 1979). · cites it 3×
United States v. Exxon Co., U.S.A., 450 F. Supp. 472 (D. Maryland 1978). · cites it 3×
Rigby v. Mastro (In Re Mastro), 585 B.R. 587 (9th Cir. BAP 2018). · cites it 2×
Holt v. Davidson, 441 F. Supp. 2d 92 (D.D.C. 2006). · cites it 2×
Toney Anaya & Elaine Anaya v. United States, 815 F.2d 1373 (10th Cir. 1987). · cites it 2×
United States v. Bank of Monte Vista, 451 F. Supp. 945 (D. Colo. 1978). · cites it 6×
Vanguard Int'l Mfg., Inc. v. United States, 588 F. Supp. 1229 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). · cites it 8×
United States v. Boulware, 350 F. Supp. 2d 837 (D. Haw. 2004). · cites it 5×
Muratore v. Dep't of the Treasury, 315 F. Supp. 2d 305 (W.D.N.Y. 2004). · cites it 5×
Sugarloaf Funding, LLC v. U.S. Dep't of the Treasury, 584 F.3d 340 (1st Cir. 2009). · cites it 2×
United States v. Aleksandrs v. Laurins, 857 F.2d 529 (9th Cir. 1988).
United States v. Bank of Moulton, 614 F.2d 1063 (5th Cir. 1980). · cites it 8×
Thurman S. Alphin, & Mary L. Alphin Alphin Aircraft Inc. v. United States, 809 F.2d 236 (4th Cir. 1987). · cites it 2×
Mahonri Faber v. United States of Am. & Mary Anne Thorum, 921 F.2d 1118 (10th Cir. 1990). · cites it 3×
Brohman v. Mason, 587 F. Supp. 62 (W.D.N.Y. 1984). · cites it 5×
Cosme v. Internal Revenue Serv., 708 F. Supp. 45 (E.D.N.Y 1989). · cites it 5×
United States v. Kis, 658 F.2d 526 (7th Cir. 1981). · cites it 3×
Roger Sylvestre v. United States of Am., 978 F.2d 25 (1st Cir. 1992). · cites it 2×
Moutevelis v. United States, 561 F. Supp. 1211 (M.D. Penn. 1983). · cites it 6×
Robertson v. United States, 843 F. Supp. 705 (S.D. Fla. 1993). · cites it 7×
Gen. Med., P.C. v. Alex Azar, 963 F.3d 516 (6th Cir. 2020).
United States v. William Greene, 698 F.2d 1364 (9th Cir. 1983). · cites it 2×
Strong v. United States, 57 F. Supp. 2d 908 (N.D. Cal. 1999). · cites it 8×
Chen Chi Wang & Wayne Chen v. United States, 757 F.2d 1000 (9th Cir. 1985). · cites it 2×
In Re December 1974 Term Grand Jury Investigation, 449 F. Supp. 743 (D. Maryland 1978). · cites it 2×
Abell v. Sothen, 214 F. App'x 743 (10th Cir. 2007). · cites it 3×
United States v. Samuels, Kramer & Co., 712 F.2d 1342 (9th Cir. 1983). · cites it 5×
Home Concrete & Supply, LLC v. United States, 599 F. Supp. 2d 678 (E.D.N.C. 2008). · cites it 2×
United States v. Thore P. Meyer, 808 F.2d 1304 (8th Cir. 1987). · cites it 2×
Neilson v. United States, 674 F. Supp. 2d 248 (D.D.C. 2009). · cites it 12×
Richard A. Deal v. United States, 759 F.2d 442 (5th Cir. 1985). · cites it 4×
Turner v. United States, 881 F. Supp. 449 (D. Haw. 1995). · cites it 5×
B & F Assocs., Inc. v. United Penn Bank, 493 F. Supp. 282 (M.D. Penn. 1980). · cites it 10×
Dorsey v. United States, 618 F. Supp. 471 (D. Maryland 1985). · cites it 7×
Sample v. Miles, 239 F. App'x 14 (5th Cir. 2007). · cites it 3×
Buckner v. United States, 585 F. Supp. 564 (N.D. Ill. 1984). · cites it 4×
Grisham v. United States, 578 F. Supp. 73 (S.D.N.Y. 1983). · cites it 4×
Davenport v. Bell, 600 F. Supp. 568 (N.D. Ill. 1984). · cites it 9×
United States v. Brigham Young Univ., 679 F.2d 1345 (10th Cir. 1982). · cites it 12×
United States v. Gertner, 873 F. Supp. 729 (D. Mass. 1995). · cites it 2×
Provenza v. Rinaudo, 586 F. Supp. 1113 (D. Maryland 1984). · cites it 3×
United States v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 474 F. Supp. 322 (D. Mass. 1979). · cites it 3×
Valero Energy Corp. v. United States, 569 F.3d 626 (7th Cir. 2009).
Barnhart v. United Penn Bank, 515 F. Supp. 1198 (M.D. Penn. 1981). · cites it 6×
United States v. Income Realty & Mortg., Inc., 612 F.2d 1224 (10th Cir. 1979). · cites it 6×
Peters v. United States, 853 F.2d 692 (9th Cir. 1988). · cites it 7×
United States v. First Nat. State Bank of NJ, 469 F. Supp. 612 (D.N.J. 1979). · cites it 4×
United States v. Balanced Fin. Mgmt., Inc., 769 F.2d 1440 (10th Cir. 1985). · cites it 3×
O'NEAL v. United States, 601 F. Supp. 874 (N.D. Ind. 1985). · cites it 2×
Doe v. United States, 777 F. Supp. 590 (E.D. Tenn. 1991). · cites it 8×
Maehr v. Comm'r, 641 F. App'x 813 (10th Cir. 2016). · cites it 3×
United States v. Ernst & Whinney, a Gen. P'ship, 735 F.2d 1296 (11th Cir. 1984).
Fisher v. United States, 676 F. Supp. 2d 1165 (W.D. Wash. 2009). · cites it 5×
United States v. Texas Heart Inst., 755 F.2d 469 (5th Cir. 1985). · cites it 4×
Bruce Pickel & Lauren Pickel v. United States, 746 F.2d 176 (3rd Cir. 1984).
Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Browner, 237 F.3d 670 (D.C. Cir. 2001). · cites it 2×
Haas v. Internal Revenue Serv., 31 F.3d 1081 (11th Cir. 1994).
Donlon I Dev. Corp. v. United States, 830 F. Supp. 1315 (C.D. Cal. 1993). · cites it 3×
United States v. William R. Campbell, 619 F.2d 765 (8th Cir. 1980). · cites it 2×
James C. Kondik & Diane S. Kondik v. United States, 81 F.3d 655 (6th Cir. 1996). · cites it 2×
Drum v. United States, 570 F. Supp. 938 (M.D. Penn. 1983). · cites it 4×
Shisler v. United States, 199 F.3d 848 (6th Cir. 1999). · cites it 8×
United States v. Chem. Bank, 593 F.2d 451 (2d Cir. 1979). · cites it 3×
United States v. New York Tel. Co., 682 F.2d 313 (2d Cir. 1982). · cites it 7×
Wheeler v. United States, 459 F. Supp. 2d 399 (W.D. Pa. 2006). · cites it 3×
Gore v. United States (In Re Gore), 182 B.R. 293 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1995).
United States v. Schenectady Sav. Bank, 525 F. Supp. 647 (N.D.N.Y. 1981). · cites it 3×
Spilman v. Crebo, 561 F. Supp. 652 (D. Mont. 1982). · cites it 3×
In Re Greene, 50 B.R. 785 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). · cites it 2×
United States v. J. Joseph Gartland, Inc., 79 F.R.D. 148 (D. Maryland 1978). · cites it 2×
United States v. Hasston, Inc., 145 F. Supp. 3d 75 (D.D.C. 2015).
Turner v. United States (In Re Turner), 182 B.R. 317 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1995).
United States v. Blackman, 72 F.3d 1418 (9th Cir. 1995). · cites it 3×
Jungles v. United States, 634 F. Supp. 585 (N.D. Ill. 1986). · cites it 2×
Tabar v. United States, 142 F.R.D. 343 (D. Utah 1992). · cites it 4×
United States v. Barter Sys., Inc., 694 F.2d 163 (8th Cir. 1982). · cites it 5×
Garpeg, Ltd. v. United States, 583 F. Supp. 789 (S.D.N.Y. 1984).
Jeffrey A. Azis v. United States Internal Revenue Serv., 522 F. App'x 770 (11th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2×
United States v. Davis, 636 F.2d 1028 (5th Cir. 1981).
Nevius v. United States, 257 F. Supp. 3d 9 (D.D.C. 2017). · cites it 2×
Holifield v. United States, 677 F. Supp. 996 (E.D. Wis. 1987). · cites it 3×
Universal Life Church, Etc. v. United States, 573 F. Supp. 181 (W.D. Va. 1983). · cites it 3×
Dennis v. United States, 660 F. Supp. 870 (C.D. Ill. 1987). · cites it 2×
Menendez v. United States, 872 F. Supp. 567 (S.D. Ind. 1994). · cites it 9×
Reimer v. United States, 43 F. Supp. 2d 232 (N.D.N.Y. 1999). · cites it 9×
Kearns v. United States, 580 F. Supp. 8 (S.D. Ohio 1983). · cites it 5×
United States v. Jones, 630 F.2d 1073 (5th Cir. 1980). · cites it 3×
Richie H. Conner v. United States, 434 F.3d 676 (4th Cir. 2006).
Grabinski v. Internal Revenue Serv., 478 F. Supp. 486 (E.D. Mo. 1979). · cites it 2×
United States v. Barter Sys., Inc., 574 F. Supp. 1 (D. Neb. 1981). · cites it 2×
Agric. Asset Mgmt. Co. v. United States, 688 F.2d 144 (2d Cir. 1982). · cites it 3×
Joan M. Callahan v. Fred Schultz, 783 F.2d 1543 (11th Cir. 1986).
Reisman v. Bullard, 14 F. App'x 377 (6th Cir. 2001).
Beck v. United States, 60 F. App'x 551 (6th Cir. 2003). · cites it 5×
Schaeffler v. United States, 22 F. Supp. 3d 319 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). · cites it 2×
United States v. Moffett, 84 F.3d 1291 (10th Cir. 1996).
Marvin D. Miller v. United States, 150 F.3d 770 (7th Cir. 1998).
McTaggart v. United States, 570 F. Supp. 547 (E.D. Mich. 1983).
United States v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 598 F.2d 321 (2d Cir. 1979). · cites it 3×
United States v. Robert S. Brewer, II, 681 F.2d 973 (5th Cir. 1982).
Deleeuw v. I.R.S., 681 F. Supp. 402 (E.D. Mich. 1987).
In Re Oil & Gas Producers Having Processing Agreements With Kerr-McGee Corp., 500 F. Supp. 440 (W.D. Okla. 1980). · cites it 3×
United States v. Morgan Guar. Trust Co., 524 F. Supp. 24 (S.D.N.Y. 1981). · cites it 3×
Garpeg, Ltd. v. United States, 588 F. Supp. 1237 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). · cites it 3×
Collorafi v. United States, 579 F. Supp. 508 (E.D.N.Y 1983). · cites it 3×
United States v. City Bank, 527 F. Supp. 523 (N.D. Ohio 1981). · cites it 3×
United States v. Crans, 517 F. Supp. 863 (N.D.N.Y. 1981). · cites it 3×
United States v. U.S. Bancorp, 12 F. Supp. 2d 982 (D. Minnesota 1998). · cites it 3×
David S. Spell v. United States of Am., J. Darlene Dupree, (Two Cases), 907 F.2d 36 (4th Cir. 1990). · cites it 2×
Henderson v. United States, 778 F. Supp. 274 (D.S.C. 1991). · cites it 2×
Hudson Valley Black Press v. Internal Revenue Serv., 307 F. Supp. 2d 543 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
United States v. Tiffany Fine Arts, Inc., 718 F.2d 7 (2d Cir. 1983). · cites it 2×
Nuttleman v. Vossberg, 585 F. Supp. 133 (D. Neb. 1984). · cites it 4×
Smith v. Fournier, 614 F. Supp. 314 (E.D. Pa. 1985). · cites it 4×
Church of Human Potential, Inc. v. Vorsky, 636 F. Supp. 93 (D.N.J. 1986).
United States v. Claes, 747 F.2d 491 (8th Cir. 1984). · cites it 2×
Action Recycling Inc. v. United States, 721 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2013).
Tech v. United States, 284 F.R.D. 192 (M.D. Penn. 2012).
Hatcher v. United States, 733 F. Supp. 218 (M.D. Penn. 1990).
Smith v. United States, 592 F. Supp. 753 (D. Conn. 1984). · cites it 2×
United States v. Blackburn, 538 F. Supp. 1376 (M.D. Fla. 1982). · cites it 2×
Kroll v. United States, 573 F. Supp. 982 (N.D. Ind. 1983). · cites it 6×
Villarreal v. United States, 524 F. App'x 419 (10th Cir. 2013).
McCammon v. United States, 584 F. Supp. 2d 193 (D.D.C. 2008).
Justin v. United States, 607 F. Supp. 2d 73 (D.D.C. 2009).
United States v. Garden State Nat'l Bank, 607 F.2d 61 (3rd Cir. 1979).
United States v. Se. First Nat'l Bank of Miami Springs, 655 F.2d 661 (5th Cir. 1981). · cites it 2×
United States v. First State Bank, 691 F.2d 332 (7th Cir. 1982). · cites it 2×
United States v. Boulware, 203 F. App'x 168 (9th Cir. 2006). · cites it 2×
United States v. Ohio Bell Tel. Co., 475 F. Supp. 697 (N.D. Ohio 1978).
In Re Grand Jury Subpoena East Nat'l Bank of Denver, 517 F. Supp. 1061 (D. Colo. 1981).
United States v. Hayes, 722 F.2d 723 (11th Cir. 1984).
Conner v. United States, 947 F. Supp. 1267 (N.D. Ind. 1996). · cites it 3×
United States v. Brigham Young Univ., 485 F. Supp. 534 (D. Utah 1980).
Franklin v. United States, 581 F. Supp. 38 (E.D. Mich. 1984).
Yocum v. United States Internal Revenue Serv., 586 F. Supp. 317 (N.D. Ind. 1984).
Dame v. United States, 643 F. Supp. 533 (S.D.N.Y. 1986).
Johnson v. United States, 607 F. Supp. 347 (E.D. Pa. 1985).
Hogan v. United States, 873 F. Supp. 80 (S.D. Ohio 1994). · cites it 2×
Odbert v. United States, 576 F. Supp. 825 (E.D. Cal. 1983). · cites it 2×
Woodrow F. Morgan, Inc. v. United States, 670 F. Supp. 289 (E.D. Cal. 1987). · cites it 5×
McCammon v. United States, 588 F. Supp. 2d 43 (D.D.C. 2008).
Gilmartin v. United States Internal Revenue Serv., 174 F. Supp. 2d 117 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). · cites it 3×
Abraham v. United States, 582 F. Supp. 257 (S.D.N.Y. 1984).
Fogelson v. United States, 579 F. Supp. 573 (D. Kan. 1983).
United States v. Arthur Young & Co., 496 F. Supp. 1152 (S.D.N.Y. 1980).
Ponsford v. United States, 771 F.2d 1305 (9th Cir. 1985).
United States v. Mfrs. Hanover Trust Co., 485 F. Supp. 653 (S.D.N.Y. 1979).
United States v. Island Trade Exch., Inc., 535 F. Supp. 993 (E.D.N.Y 1982).
United States v. Ladd, 471 F. Supp. 1150 (N.D. Tex. 1979).
Segmond v. United States, 589 F. Supp. 568 (S.D.N.Y. 1984).
Universal Life Church, Inc. v. United States, 582 F. Supp. 79 (N.D. Cal. 1984).
United States v. AS Holdings Grp., LLC, 521 F. App'x 405 (6th Cir. 2013). · cites it 4×
Pylar v. United States, 835 F. Supp. 1033 (W.D. Mich. 1993). · cites it 4×
Gaumer v. United States, 685 F. Supp. 167 (N.D. Ohio 1988). · cites it 4×
Mollison v. United States, 481 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2007).
Pudlo v. Dir., Internal Revenue Serv., 587 F. Supp. 1010 (N.D. Ill. 1984).
United States v. Maxey & Co., Pc, 956 F. Supp. 823 (N.D. Ind. 1997).
Robert G. Olson v. United States, 872 F.2d 820 (8th Cir. 1989). · cites it 2×
Comm'r v. Hayes, 631 F. Supp. 785 (N.D. Cal. 1985). · cites it 2×
United States v. Key Oil Co., Inc., 460 F. Supp. 878 (D.N.J. 1978). · cites it 2×
Spine v. United States, 670 F. Supp. 217 (S.D. Ohio 1987). · cites it 2×
Polselli v. IRS, 598 U.S. 432 (2023).
United States v. Kersting, 891 F.2d 1407 (9th Cir. 1989).
Holderbaum v. United States, 589 F. Supp. 107 (D. Colo. 1984).
Amax Coal Co. v. United States, 959 F. Supp. 990 (S.D. Ind. 1996).
United States v. Meininger, 101 F.R.D. 700 (D. Neb. 1984).
United States v. Boulware, 203 F. App'x 170 (9th Cir. 2006). · cites it 2×
In re Grand Jury, 619 F.2d 1022 (3rd Cir. 1980).
United States v. Price, 655 F.2d 56 (5th Cir. 1981). · cites it 2×
Mitchell v. Internal Revenue Serv., 633 F. Supp. 1043 (S.D. Miss. 1986). · cites it 3×
Good Karma, LLC v. United States, 546 F. Supp. 2d 597 (N.D. Ill. 2008). “any person having possession, custody, or care of books or accounts containing entries relating to the business of the person liable for tax or required to perform the act, or any other person the Secretary may deem proper, to appear before the Secretary at a time and place…”
Steinhardt v. United States, 326 F. Supp. 2d 1113 (C.D. Cal. 2003).
Boyd v. United States, 87 F. App'x 481 (6th Cir. 2003).
Cates v. United States, 985 F. Supp. 736 (N.D. Ohio 1997). · cites it 11×
Nevius v. United States, 190 F. Supp. 3d 191 (D.D.C. 2016).
Villarreal v. Horn, 207 F. Supp. 3d 700 (S.D. Tex. 2016).
God's Storehouse Topeka Church v. United States, 98 F.4th 990 (10th Cir. 2024).
Johannes Lamprecht v. Cmsnr. IRS, 98 F.4th 1132 (D.C. Cir. 2024).
United States v. Sw. Bank & Trust Co., 693 F.2d 994 (10th Cir. 1982).
United States v. Saunders, 621 F. Supp. 745 (N.D. Ga. 1985).
Younglove v. United States, 581 F. Supp. 37 (E.D. Mich. 1984).
Middleton v. United States, 609 F. Supp. 1045 (N.D. Ohio 1985). · cites it 10×
Haney v. Castle Meadows, Inc., 868 F. Supp. 1233 (D. Colo. 1994).
Runkle v. United States, 962 F. Supp. 1112 (N.D. Ind. 1997).
United States v. First Am. Bank, 504 F. Supp. 90 (N.D. Fla. 1980).
United States v. New York Tel. Co., 644 F.2d 953 (2d Cir. 1981).
United States v. Beacon Fed. Sav. & Loan, 718 F.2d 49 (2d Cir. 1983).
Munsell v. United States, 651 F. Supp. 698 (D. Nev. 1986). · cites it 9×
Xélan, Inc. v. United States, 361 F. Supp. 2d 459 (D. Maryland 2005). · cites it 4×
United States v. First Nat'l Bank, 727 F.2d 762 (8th Cir. 1984). · cites it 2×
Hodges v. United States Gov't, 762 F.2d 1299 (5th Cir. 1985). · cites it 9×
Wooden Horse Investments, Inc. v. United States, 806 F. Supp. 1487 (E.D. Wash. 1992). · cites it 2×
United States v. Preusch, 924 F. Supp. 1021 (D. Nev. 1996). · cites it 2×
Provenzano v. United States, 569 F. Supp. 543 (E.D. Pa. 1983). · cites it 2×
Cook v. United States, 582 F. Supp. 1501 (S.D. Miss. 1984). · cites it 2×
Dial v. United States, 599 F. Supp. 475 (S.D. Tex. 1984). · cites it 2×
United States v. First Fam. Mortg. Corp., 739 F.2d 1275 (7th Cir. 1984). · cites it 3×
Tax Liabilities of Does v. United States, 866 F.2d 1015 (8th Cir. 1989). · cites it 3×
Morris v. United States, 616 F. Supp. 246 (E.D. Mich. 1985). · cites it 3×
Neece v. Internal Revenue Serv., 96 F.3d 460 (10th Cir. 1996).
United States v. Daffin, 653 F.2d 121 (4th Cir. 1981).
United States v. Nanlo, Inc., 519 F. Supp. 723 (D. Mass. 1981).
Gambino v. Pomeroy, 562 F. Supp. 974 (D.N.J. 1983).
Hill v. Mosby, 896 F. Supp. 1004 (D. Idaho 1995).
Schlick v. United States, 586 F. Supp. 433 (N.D. Ill. 1984).
United States v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 486 F. Supp. 317 (S.D.N.Y. 1979).
Fugazy Cont'l Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 514 F. Supp. 718 (E.D.N.Y 1981).
United States v. Kemper Money Mkt. Fund, Inc., 575 F. Supp. 1505 (N.D. Ill. 1983).
United States v. Kemper Money Mkt. Fund, Inc., 594 F. Supp. 185 (N.D. Ill. 1984).
United States v. Silva & Silva Acct. Corp., 641 F.2d 710 (9th Cir. 1981).
United States v. Sweet, 655 F.2d 54 (5th Cir. 1981).
Tilley v. United States, 124 F. App'x 277 (5th Cir. 2005).
Timothy Elmes v. United States, 264 F. App'x 776 (11th Cir. 2008).
Overton v. United States, 44 F. App'x 932 (10th Cir. 2002).
Charles Williams v. USA, 453 F. App'x 532 (5th Cir. 2011).
Anthony Masciantonio v. United States, 528 F. App'x 120 (3rd Cir. 2013).
John Ramirez v. United States, 604 F. App'x 575 (9th Cir. 2015).
Boulware v. United States, 203 F. App'x 172 (9th Cir. 2006).
United States v. Buel, 765 F.2d 766 (9th Cir. 1985).
United States v. New York Tel. Co., 528 F. Supp. 175 (S.D.N.Y. 1981). · cites it 3×
United States v. Ernst & Whinney, 584 F. Supp. 1073 (N.D. Ohio 1984). · cites it 3×
United States v. John G. Mutschler & Assocs., Inc., 734 F.2d 363 (8th Cir. 1984). · cites it 2×
Goldberg v. United States, 586 F. Supp. 92 (D. Maryland 1984). · cites it 2×
Holcomb v. Internal Revenue Serv. (S.D. Cal. 2019). · cites it 7×
United States v. Omega Solutions, 521 F. App'x 405 (6th Cir. 2013). · cites it 4×
In re the Tax Liabilities of DOES, 541 F. Supp. 213 (N.D.N.Y. 1982). · cites it 3×
Asmar v. United States, Dep't of Treasury, Internal Revenue Serv., 680 F. Supp. 248 (E.D. Mich. 1987). · cites it 3×
Berman v. United States, 264 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2001).
Arnold v. United States, 635 F. Supp. 88 (M.D. Fla. 1986).
Bancsi v. Pennington, 812 F. Supp. 759 (N.D. Ohio 1992).
United States v. Barter Sys. of Grand Rapids, 557 F. Supp. 698 (W.D. Mich. 1982). · cites it 4×
United States v. Kimball, 450 F. Supp. 158 (D. Vt. 1978).
Dean v. United States, 598 F. Supp. 55 (D. Alaska 1984). · cites it 4×
Birdseye v. United States, 676 F. Supp. 87 (W.D. Pa. 1987).
Combs v. United States Gov't (S.D. Cal. 2025). · cites it 6×
Mirambel Jr. v. United States (S.D. Fla. 2025). · cites it 6× ““26 U.S.C. § 7609(c)(2)(A) expressly forbids motions to quash that challenge a ‘first party’ summons—that is, a summons served on ‘the person with respect to whose liability the summons is issued, or any officer or employee of such person.”
Neilson v. United States (D.D.C. 2009). · cites it 10×
United States v. New England Tel. Co., 530 F. Supp. 274 (D.N.H. 1981).
United States v. Omohundro, 619 F.2d 51 (10th Cir. 1980).
United States v. First Nat'l Bank, 626 F.2d 605 (8th Cir. 1980).
Reca v. Internal Revenue Serv. (S.D. Fla. 2024). · cites it 5×
Hanna v. United States, 647 F. Supp. 590 (D. Utah 1986). · cites it 3×
United States v. Henderson, 133 F.R.D. 28 (M.D.N.C. 1990). · cites it 3×
United States v. Gillotti, 822 F. Supp. 984 (W.D.N.Y. 1993). · cites it 2×
God's Storehouse Topeka Church v. United States (D. Kan. 2023). · cites it 4×
Williams Dev. & Constr., Inc. v. United States (D.S.D. 2020). · cites it 4×
Marra v. United States (W.D. Wash. 2021). · cites it 4×
Bros. Keeper Ministries v. United States Gov't (S.D. Cal. 2025). · cites it 4×
Saltzman v. United States, 577 F. Supp. 385 (W.D. Pa. 1983). · cites it 10×
United States v. Liebman, 569 F. Supp. 761 (D.N.J. 1983).
Pierre v. United States, 800 F. Supp. 446 (S.D. Miss. 1992). · cites it 9×
Asmar v. Us Dept. of Treasury, Irs, 680 F. Supp. 248 (E.D. Mich. 1987). · cites it 3×
United States v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 575 F. Supp. 138 (D.R.I. 1983). · cites it 2×
Nardini v. United States, 676 F. Supp. 389 (D. Mass. 1987). · cites it 2×
United States v. Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan, 529 F. Supp. 1246 (E.D. Pa. 1982). · cites it 2×
Haber v. United States (2d Cir. 2016). · cites it 3×
Keith Ngo v. United States, 699 F. App'x 617 (9th Cir. 2017). · cites it 3×
G2A.COM Sp. z.o.o. (Ltd.) v. United States (3rd Cir. 2019). · cites it 3×
United States v. Hori, 470 F. Supp. 1209 (C.D. Cal. 1979). · cites it 2×
Harper v. Internal Revenue Serv., Comm'r (D.N.H. 2023). · cites it 3×
Steeves v. United States Gov't (S.D. Cal. 2024). · cites it 3×
Slim Ventures v. USA (D. Utah 2023). · cites it 3×
Bishop v. USA (D. Utah 2023). · cites it 3×
Bishop v. USA (D. Utah 2023). · cites it 3×
Bishop v. USA (D. Utah 2023). · cites it 3×
Slim Ventures v. USA (D. Utah 2023). · cites it 3×
Slim Ventures v. USA (D. Utah 2023). · cites it 3×
Bishop v. USA (D. Utah 2023). · cites it 3×
Slim Ventures v. USA (D. Utah 2023). · cites it 3×
Beaver (W.D. Wash. 2025). · cites it 3×
Jason C. Anderson v. United States, 236 F. App'x 491 (11th Cir. 2007). · cites it 5×
Vanessa Shaw v. United States, 517 F. App'x 778 (11th Cir. 2013). · cites it 5×
Travis v. Miki, 394 F. Supp. 2d 1277 (D. Haw. 2005). · cites it 5×
Div. of Pari-Mutuel Wagering v. Winfield, 443 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
United States v. Raabe, 431 F. Supp. 424 (D.S.D. 1977).
Schiff v. United States, 628 F. Supp. 9 (D. Conn. 1984).
United States v. O'Shea, 662 F. Supp. 2d 535 (S.D.W. Va 2009). · cites it 4×
Pragovich v. Internal Revenue Serv., 676 F. Supp. 2d 557 (E.D. Mich. 2009). · cites it 4×
Jewell v. United States (10th Cir. 2014). · cites it 4×
Mollison v. United States (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 4×
Waller v. United States, 302 F. App'x 656 (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 4×
Strough v. United States, 326 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (C.D. Cal. 2003).
Highland Capital Mgmt., L.P. v. United States, 626 F. App'x 324 (2d Cir. 2015).
Broderick v. Comm'r, 63 F. App'x 374 (9th Cir. 2003).
Benistar 419 Plan Servs., Inc. v. United States, 144 F. App'x 902 (2d Cir. 2005).
Morrison v. United States, 881 F. Supp. 306 (S.D. Ohio 1995). · cites it 6×
United States v. Pennington, 718 F.2d 1015 (11th Cir. 1983).
Abraham v. United States, 740 F.2d 2 (2d Cir. 1984).
BMP Fam. Ltd. P'ship v. United States (11th Cir. 2018). · cites it 2×
Michael R. Presley v. United States (11th Cir. 2019). · cites it 2×
Hanna Polselli v. IRS (6th Cir. 2022). · cites it 2×
McNeil v. USA (E.D. Ark. 2020). · cites it 2× “26 U.S.C § 7609(c)(2)(A); see Tabar v. United States, 142 F.”
In the Matter of the Tax Liabilities of John Does (N.D. Cal. 2021). · cites it 2×
United States v. Vaught (D. Idaho 2019). · cites it 2×
DADON v. United States (S.D. Ind. 2020). · cites it 2×
Urbanek v. Internal Revenue Serv. (M.D. Penn. 2022). · cites it 2×
Connelly v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue (E.D. Wis. 2021). · cites it 2×
Lizalek v. United States (E.D. Wis. 2023). · cites it 2×
Senvest Master Fund, L.P. v. United States (S.D.N.Y. 2025). · cites it 2×
Goddard v. United States (9th Cir. 2025). · cites it 2×
Beaver v. Does 1-10 (W.D. Wash. 2025). · cites it 2×
Vanderhoof v. Comm'r of the Internal Revenue Serv., 73 F. Supp. 2d 1165 (E.D. Cal. 1999). · cites it 5×
Faber v. United States, 69 F. Supp. 2d 965 (W.D. Mich. 1999). · cites it 5×
Covington v. United States, 853 F. Supp. 888 (W.D.N.C. 1994). · cites it 5×
Fitzgerald v. United States, 882 F. Supp. 959 (D. Idaho 1994). · cites it 5×
United States v. First State Bank, 481 F. Supp. 1305 (S.D. Ga. 1980). · cites it 5×
Lintzenich v. United States, 371 F. Supp. 2d 972 (S.D. Ind. 2005). · cites it 3×
Stewart v. United States (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 3×
United States v. Omega Solutions, LLC, 873 F. Supp. 2d 887 (E.D. Mich. 2012). · cites it 3×
Xelan, Inc. v. United States, 361 F. Supp. 2d 459 (D. Maryland 2005). · cites it 4×
Stratton v. United States, 34 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (N.D. Ind. 1998). · cites it 4×
Russell v. United States, 879 F. Supp. 74 (W.D. Mich. 1995). · cites it 4×
White v. United States, 629 F. Supp. 992 (E.D.N.C. 1986).
Holifield v. United States, 689 F. Supp. 865 (E.D. Wis. 1988).
Kistner v. United States, 568 F. Supp. 809 (D. Or. 1983).
Navarro v. Internal Revenue Serv., 378 F. App'x 101 (2d Cir. 2010). · cites it 2×
Keith Deorio v. United States, 390 F. App'x 706 (9th Cir. 2010). · cites it 2×
Leroy Dissinger v. United States, 543 F. App'x 620 (9th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2×
Ryerson v. Internal Revenue Serv., 371 F. Supp. 2d 1130 (D. Ariz. 2005). · cites it 2×
Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. United States, 730 F. Supp. 2d 1344 (S.D. Fla. 2010). · cites it 2×
Justin v. United States (D.D.C. 2009). · cites it 2×
Tarantino v. United States Internal Revenue Serv., 321 F. App'x 638 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2×
Tarantino v. United States Internal Revenue Serv., 321 F. App'x 638 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2×
Mason v. United States, 966 F. Supp. 1146 (M.D. Fla. 1997). · cites it 3×
Fink v. United States, 578 F. Supp. 617 (E.D. Mo. 1983). · cites it 3×
United States v. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co., 573 F. Supp. 811 (D.D.C. 1983).
United States v. Jim R. Clower, 666 F. App'x 869 (11th Cir. 2016).
Jodi Hohman v. IRS (6th Cir. 2019).
Jodi Hohman v. IRS (6th Cir. 2019).
Taylor Lohmeyer Law Firm PLLC v. United States, 385 F. Supp. 3d 548 (W.D. Tex. 2019).
Sabena Puri v. United States (9th Cir. 2022).
Bishop v. United States (10th Cir. 2023).
Zietzke v. United States (N.D. Cal. 2020).
Kelly v. United States (S.D. Cal. 2021).
Steeves v. United States (9th Cir. 2026).
United States v. Ullah (2d Cir. 2026).
Gartner v. United States, 259 F. App'x 514 (3rd Cir. 2008). · cites it 2×
Matter of Does, 541 F. Supp. 213 (N.D.N.Y. 1982). · cites it 3×
Pflum v. United States, 953 F. Supp. 339 (D. Kan. 1997). · cites it 2×
Kveton v. United States, 590 F. Supp. 544 (D. Kan. 1984). · cites it 2×
Free United Mission Mother Church v. United States, 635 F. Supp. 1045 (S.D. Iowa 1986). · cites it 2×
United States v. Moon, 472 F. Supp. 554 (E.D. Mo. 1979). · cites it 2×
United States v. Dollar Sav. Bank, 488 F. Supp. 420 (W.D. Pa. 1980). · cites it 2×
Zugerese Trading LLC v. Internal Revenue Serv., 336 F. App'x 416 (5th Cir. 2009).
Stoffels v. Hegarty, 267 F. App'x 814 (10th Cir. 2008).
Steven Sears v. United States, 392 F. App'x 605 (9th Cir. 2010).
April Mottahedeh v. United States, 411 F. App'x 274 (11th Cir. 2011).
Norfleet v. United States (4th Cir. 2002).
Khan v. US Ex Rel. IRS, 537 F. Supp. 2d 944 (N.D. Ill. 2008).
United States v. Falgione, 395 F. Supp. 2d 241 (W.D. Pa. 2005).
Wilde v. United States, 385 F. Supp. 2d 966 (D. Ariz. 2005).
Vano v. United States, 181 F. Supp. 2d 956 (N.D. Ind. 2001).
Scotty's Contracting & Stone Co. v. United States, 201 F. Supp. 2d 757 (W.D. Ky. 2001).
Conner v. United States (4th Cir. 2006).
Borchert, Steven E. v. United States, 232 F. App'x 601 (7th Cir. 2007).
Patrick Bohall v. United States, 339 F. App'x 661 (8th Cir. 2009).
Reiserer v. United States (9th Cir. 2007).
Norfleet v. United States, 48 F. App'x 907 (4th Cir. 2002).
Hinkson v. Hines, 101 F. App'x 755 (9th Cir. 2004).
United States v. Worley, 347 F. App'x 744 (3rd Cir. 2009).
United States v. Worley, 347 F. App'x 744 (3rd Cir. 2009).
Schulz v. United States, Internal Revenue Serv., 204 F. App'x 999 (2d Cir. 2006).
Bharose v. United States, 210 F. App'x 713 (9th Cir. 2006).
Khan v. United States ex rel. Internal Revenue Serv., 537 F. Supp. 2d 944 (N.D. Ill. 2008).
Miccosukee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 877 F. Supp. 2d 1331 (S.D. Fla. 2012).
Oliva v. United States, 221 F.R.D. 540 (D. Haw. 2003).
Gassaway v. United States (10th Cir. 1999).
Overton v. United States (10th Cir. 2000).
Gass v. US Dept. of Treasury (10th Cir. 2000).
Yossif v. United States (4th Cir. 1996).
United States v. Heard (4th Cir. 1998).
Zimmerman v. United States, 198 F.R.D. 535 (E.D. Cal. 2000).
In re Grand Jury Empanelled 12/16/77, 82 F.R.D. 18 (D.N.J. 1979).
United States v. Bank of Stockton, 467 F. Supp. 306 (E.D. Cal. 1979).
United States v. Gregory Gov't Sec., Inc., 550 F. Supp. 860 (D. Or. 1982).
United States v. Critelli, 572 F. Supp. 349 (W.D.N.Y. 1983).
Hethcote v. United States, 604 F. Supp. 117 (N.D. Ind. 1984).
Paine v. U.S. Gov't, 682 F. Supp. 739 (E.D.N.Y 1987).
Crampton v. United States, 163 F.R.D. 545 (N.D. Ind. 1995). “This case involves a petition filed pursuant to 26 U.S.C § 7609(b)(2)(A) to quash a third-party summons, as opposed to a civil complaint.”
— 26 U.S.C. § 7609(a)(1) — 1 case
Polselli v. IRS, 598 U.S. 432 (2023). “When the IRS issues a summons, it must generally provide notice to any person identi- fed in the summons, 26 U. S. C. § 7609 (a)(1). Anyone entitled to such notice may then bring a motion to quash the summons, § 7609(b)(2)(A).”
— 26 U.S.C. § 7609(b)(2)(A) — 2 cases
Good Karma, LLC v. United States, 546 F. Supp. 2d 597 (N.D. Ill. 2008). “any person having possession, custody, or care of books or accounts containing entries relating to the business of the person liable for tax or required to perform the act, or any other person the Secretary may deem proper, to appear before the Secretary at a time and place…”
Crampton v. United States, 163 F.R.D. 545 (N.D. Ind. 1995). “This case involves a petition filed pursuant to 26 U.S.C § 7609(b)(2)(A) to quash a third-party summons, as opposed to a civil complaint.”
— 26 U.S.C. § 7609(c)(2)(A) — 2 cases
McNeil v. USA (E.D. Ark. 2020). “26 U.S.C § 7609(c)(2)(A); see Tabar v. United States, 142 F.”
Mirambel Jr. v. United States (S.D. Fla. 2025). ““26 U.S.C. § 7609(c)(2)(A) expressly forbids motions to quash that challenge a ‘first party’ summons—that is, a summons served on ‘the person with respect to whose liability the summons is issued, or any officer or employee of such person.”
— 26 U.S.C. § 7609(f) — 1 case
Harper v. Werfel, 118 F.4th 100 (1st Cir. 2024). “See 26 U.S.C. § 7609 (f). The district court dismissed Harper's complaint, concluding, as pertinent to his constitutional claims, that he lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in his Coinbase account information, and that Coinbase's records were not his property.”
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.