Peoples Deposit Bank & Trust Co., Paris, Ky. v. United States

212 F.2d 86, 45 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1388, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 4458, 45 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 1388
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedApril 22, 1954
Docket11961_1
StatusPublished
Cited by30 cases

This text of 212 F.2d 86 (Peoples Deposit Bank & Trust Co., Paris, Ky. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Peoples Deposit Bank & Trust Co., Paris, Ky. v. United States, 212 F.2d 86, 45 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1388, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 4458, 45 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 1388 (6th Cir. 1954).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant bank appeals from the District Court’s judgment requiring it to obey a summons issued by a special agent of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, in pursuance of section 3614 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 3614, to appear and produce for inspection .and examination certain books, records, papers, and memoranda of the bank evidencing transactions occurring in the years 1944, 1945, and 1946, relating to the tax liability of E. F. Prichard, Sr., Aliene Power Prichard, E. F. Prichard, Jr., and Lucy Prichard.

At the hearing on the District Court’s order directing the appellant bank to show cause why it should not be punished for contempt of court in failing to obey the summons, a special .agent of the Bureau of Internal Revenue testified in substance, that from his investigation he had concluded that there was strong suspicion of a false or fraudulent tax return by E. F. Prichard, Sr., for a certain year or years prior to the statutory limitation. See sections 275, 276, Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. §§ 275, 276. The special agent was not obliged to disclose in detail the facts relative to his investigation and conclusion, nor was the District Court obliged to require proof of facts showing reasonable grounds to believe that the tax returns of E. F. Prichard, Sr., and others were false or fraudulent.

The testimony of the special agent clearly justified the District Court’s judgment requiring the appellant bank to obey the summons to appear and produce the books, records, papers, and memoranda in question. Section 3633, Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 3633. For the reasons stated in the opinion below, D.C., 112 F.Supp. 720, the judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Cedrone
400 F. Supp. 1203 (N.D. New York, 1975)
United States v. Fisher
352 F. Supp. 731 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1972)
Justice v. United States
365 F.2d 312 (Sixth Circuit, 1966)
United States v. Bayard Edward Ryan
320 F.2d 500 (Sixth Circuit, 1963)
United States v. Carey
218 F. Supp. 298 (D. Delaware, 1963)
In re the Commissioner of Internal Revenue
216 F. Supp. 90 (E.D. Michigan, 1963)
Masters v. Arend
313 F.2d 79 (Ninth Circuit, 1963)
De Masters v. Arend
313 F.2d 79 (Ninth Circuit, 1963)
Eberhart v. Broadrock Development Corp.
296 F.2d 685 (Sixth Circuit, 1961)
McDermott v. John Baumgarth Co.
286 F.2d 864 (Seventh Circuit, 1961)
Mcdermott v. John Baumgarth Company
286 F.2d 864 (Seventh Circuit, 1961)
J. E. Wall, District Director v. Calvin D. Mitchell
287 F.2d 31 (Fourth Circuit, 1961)
Secretary of the Treasury v. Superior Court
81 P.R. 648 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1960)
Secretario de Hacienda v. Tribunal Superior
81 P.R. Dec. 666 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1960)
US ALUMINUM SIDING CORPORATION v. Eshleman
170 F. Supp. 12 (N.D. Illinois, 1958)
In Re Tax Liability of Grant Foster
159 F. Supp. 444 (S.D. New York, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
212 F.2d 86, 45 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1388, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 4458, 45 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 1388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peoples-deposit-bank-trust-co-paris-ky-v-united-states-ca6-1954.