19 Cited authorities

St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks
509 U.S. 502 (1993) Cited 12,257 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that a trier of fact may infer discrimination upon rejecting an employer's proffered reason for termination
United States v. Powell
379 U.S. 48 (1964) Cited 1,913 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that the government needs to show probable cause only when the taxpayer raises a substantial question that judicial enforcement constitutes an abuse of process
United States v. Arthur Young Co.
465 U.S. 805 (1984) Cited 478 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Court may not circumscribe the broad authority granted the IRS by § 7602
United States v. Lasalle National Bank
437 U.S. 298 (1978) Cited 521 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the summons must be issued before the Service recommends to the Department of Justice that a criminal prosecution, which reasonably would relate to the subject matter of the summons, be undertaken"
United States v. Bisceglia
420 U.S. 141 (1975) Cited 225 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that federal courts should scrutinize summonses issued to third parties with extra care
Tiffany Fine Arts, Inc. v. United States
469 U.S. 310 (1985) Cited 108 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the assertion that the IRS is seeking information relating to audits of other taxpayers, even if true, does not render a summons illegitimate if there is another legitimate purpose of its issuance
Brannen v. C.I.R
722 F.2d 695 (11th Cir. 1984) Cited 129 times 3 Legal Analyses
Concluding that the activity at issue was not engaged in for profit
U.S. v. Balanced Financial Management
769 F.2d 1440 (10th Cir. 1985) Cited 119 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding that to be entitled to an evidentiary hearing, a taxpayer must "factually oppose the Government's allegations by affidavit"
U.S. v. Blackman
72 F.3d 1418 (9th Cir. 1995) Cited 73 times
Stating that we review de novo the district court's rulings on the scope of the attorney-client privilege because they involve "mixed questions of law and fact" and that the burden of persuasion is on the party seeking to establish that the privilege applies
Sochin v. C.I.R
843 F.2d 351 (9th Cir. 1988) Cited 80 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a transaction was a sham because it had no “practical effects other than the creation of income tax losses”
Section 7602 - Examination of books and witnesses
26 U.S.C. § 7602 Cited 1,564 times 22 Legal Analyses
Granting power to issue summons to investigate, inter alia, the "liability of any person for any internal revenue tax or the liability at law or in equity of any transferee or fiduciary of any person in respect to any internal revenue tax"
Rule 406 - Habit; Routine Practice
Fed. R. Evid. 406 Cited 736 times 3 Legal Analyses
Stating that evidence of an organization's routine practice can be admitted to prove that the organization acted in accordance with that routine practice on a particular occasion
Rule 301 - Presumptions in Civil Cases Generally
Fed. R. Evid. 301 Cited 642 times 18 Legal Analyses
Explaining presumptions

USA v. Irizarry & McCall, P.C.

19 Cited authorities

Holding that a trier of fact may infer discrimination upon rejecting an employer's proffered reason for termination

Holding that the government needs to show probable cause only when the taxpayer raises a substantial question that judicial enforcement constitutes an abuse of process

Holding that the Court may not circumscribe the broad authority granted the IRS by § 7602

Holding that "the summons must be issued before the Service recommends to the Department of Justice that a criminal prosecution, which reasonably would relate to the subject matter of the summons, be undertaken"

Holding that federal courts should scrutinize summonses issued to third parties with extra care

Holding that the assertion that the IRS is seeking information relating to audits of other taxpayers, even if true, does not render a summons illegitimate if there is another legitimate purpose of its issuance

Concluding that the activity at issue was not engaged in for profit

Finding that to be entitled to an evidentiary hearing, a taxpayer must "factually oppose the Government's allegations by affidavit"

Stating that we review de novo the district court's rulings on the scope of the attorney-client privilege because they involve "mixed questions of law and fact" and that the burden of persuasion is on the party seeking to establish that the privilege applies

Holding that a transaction was a sham because it had no “practical effects other than the creation of income tax losses”

Granting power to issue summons to investigate, inter alia, the "liability of any person for any internal revenue tax or the liability at law or in equity of any transferee or fiduciary of any person in respect to any internal revenue tax"

Stating that evidence of an organization's routine practice can be admitted to prove that the organization acted in accordance with that routine practice on a particular occasion

Explaining presumptions