F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUN 12 1997
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
RAYMOND N. SPENCE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 96-2196
(D.C. No. CIV-95-811-M)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, (D. N.M.)
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before PORFILIO and LOGAN, Circuit Judges, and BURRAGE, District Judge. **
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
**
Honorable Michael Burrage, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Oklahoma, sitting by designation.
This appeal arises from plaintiff’s suit against defendant brought pursuant
to 26 U.S.C. § 7431. 1 Plaintiff sought damages for disclosure of tax return
information in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 6103(a). The district court granted
summary judgment in favor of defendant, finding no violation of § 6103. 2 The
district court also denied plaintiff’s motion to strike the declaration of Revenue
Officer David Rehbein. Plaintiff appeals, and we affirm.
David Rehbein was assigned by the Internal Revenue Service to collect
plaintiff’s unpaid federal tax liabilities. Through his investigation, Mr. Rehbein
determined that plaintiff transferred real properties to purported religious entities
and family members. Plaintiff denied having any interest in the transferred
properties, although he continued to pay utility bills on them. To determine the
nature of plaintiff’s interest, if any, Mr. Rehbein concluded it was necessary to
obtain records from tenants of the properties. Mr. Rehbein issued summons to the
tenants requesting their records of rental payments, including canceled checks,
and other information pertinent to whether plaintiff retained an interest in the
1
28 U.S.C. § 7431 provides for a civil cause of action and damages when
any officer or employee of the United States knowingly or negligently discloses
tax return information in violation of § 6103. It also makes an exception to
liability for a disclosure resulting from a good faith but erroneous interpretation
of § 6103.
2
Because it found no violation of § 6103, the district court did not reach the
issue of whether the disclosure was the result of a good faith but erroneous
interpretation of § 6103. Because of our holding in this case, we need not reach
this issue either.
-2-
properties. The summons identified plaintiff by name, stated his address, and
listed the calendar years for which information was sought, so that the summoned
tenants could identify the records requested.
On appeal, plaintiff argues that disclosure of the return information
contained in the summons violated § 6103. Specifically, he maintains that the
information sought was reasonably available other than through means of
summons to third parties and that, because the summons themselves were not
authorized under the Revenue Code, disclosing return information in connection
with their issuance violated § 6103. Plaintiff also argues the district court erred
on the admissibility of Mr. Rehbein’s declaration attached to defendant’s motion
for summary judgment.
We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff. See Thomas v. Wichita
Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 968 F.2d 1022, 1024 (10th Cir. 1992). We apply the
same standard as did the district court, and we will affirm summary judgment if
defendant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law and there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact. See id. We review the district court’s denial of
plaintiff’s motion to strike Mr. Rehbein’s declaration, an evidentiary ruling, for
an abuse of discretion. See Cartier v. Jackson, 59 F.3d 1046, 1048 (10th Cir.
1995).
-3-
26 U.S.C. § 6103(a) prohibits disclosure by officers or employees of the
United States of tax return information obtained in connection with that person’s
service as an officer or employee. The section provides for an exception to the
general rule prohibiting disclosure, however, which is relevant here.
An internal revenue officer or employee may, in connection
with his official duties relating to any audit, collection activity, or
civil or criminal tax investigation or any other offense under the
internal revenue laws, disclose return information to the extent that
such disclosure is necessary in obtaining information, which is not
otherwise reasonably available, with respect to the correct
determination of tax, liability for tax, or the amount to be collected
or with respect to the enforcement of any other provision of this title.
Such disclosures shall be made only in such situations and under
such conditions as the Secretary may prescribe by regulation.
26 U.S.C. § 6103(k)(6).
For defendant to be sheltered by the “safe harbor” of § 6103(k)(6), three
requirements must be met: (1) the information sought must be “with respect to
the correct determination of tax, liability for tax, or the amount to be collected or
with respect to the enforcement of any other provision of [the Internal Revenue
Code];” (2) the information cannot be “otherwise reasonably available;” and (3)
disclosure of return information must be necessary to obtain the information
sought. 26 U.S.C. § 6103(k)(6); see DiAndre v. United States, 968 F.2d 1049,
1052 (10th Cir. 1992). The parties agree that the summons disclosed return
information as contemplated by § 6103(b)(2), and plaintiff does not argue that
disclosing his name and the years for which the inquiry was made was
-4-
unnecessary to obtain the information sought. Plaintiff does argue the
information sought by the summons was otherwise reasonably available. He
maintains, if in fact he retained an interest in the transferred properties, his own
records would contain that information. Plaintiff’s contention ignores the fact
that previously he had advised Mr. Rehbein he had no ownership interest in the
properties. In addition, the summons sought rental information from tenants, such
as canceled checks, that only the tenants would possess. Even if the summons
requested other information that might have been available from other sources,
§ 6103 “does not prohibit requesting additional information beyond that not
otherwise reasonably available if the additional request requires no further
disclosure.” Id. at 1053. We agree with the district court that the information
sought by the summons was not otherwise reasonably available.
Plaintiff also argues that summary judgment was improper because a
material issue of fact remains about the underlying validity of the summons. He
maintains he had no unpaid tax liability and, therefore, the summons were
unauthorized. Although he never states the proposition directly, his argument
seems to be that the underlying means of disclosure, through summons, notice of
levy, and circular letter, must be valid before the safe harbor of § 6103(k)(6) can
apply. This position goes against the plain wording of the statute and case law.
We held in DiAndre that
-5-
section [6103(k)(6)] does not require the IRS to justify the
appropriateness or need for the information sought so long as such
information relates to the determination of tax liability and is not
otherwise reasonably available. In other words, section 6103 does
not provide a vehicle to test the probable cause or any other level of
justification to investigate. See Barrett v. United States, 795 F.2d
446, 451 (5th Cir. 1986) (“in a section 7431 action, the court does
not inquire whether the information sought is necessary”); cf. United
States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57, 85 S. Ct. 248, 254, 13 L. Ed.2d
112 (1964) (IRS does not require probable cause to issue summons);
United States v. MacKay, 608 F.2d 830, 832 (10th Cir. 1979)
(same). . . .
. . . Whatever other limits there may be on the scope of an IRS
investigation, cf., e.g., United States v. LaSalle Nat’l Bank, 437
U.S. 298, 313, 98 S.Ct. 2357, 2366, 57 L. Ed.2d 221 (1978) (“the
IRS must use its summons authority in good faith”); Powell, 379 U.S.
at 58, 85 S.Ct. at 255 (court may refuse to enforce summons if issued
for an improper purpose such as to harass or to apply pressure in a
collateral matter); United Stats v. Malnik, 489 F.2d 682, 686 n.4
(5th Cir.) (“enforcement of an unclear and overly broad summons
would violate the Fourth Amendment’s proscription of unreasonable
searches and seizures”), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 826, 95 S.Ct. 44,
42 L. Ed.2d 50 (1974), it is not section 6103 that imposes those
limits.
968 F.2d at 1053-54. 3
In addition, several other circuits have specifically held the validity of the
means by which the information is sought is irrelevant to whether the disclosure
of return information runs afoul of § 6103. See Wilkerson v. United States, 67
F.3d 112, 116 (5th Cir. 1995) (“the validity of the underlying collection activity is
3
We are unimpressed by plaintiff’s attempt to distinguish DiAndre and his
position that it is inapplicable to this case.
-6-
irrelevant in determining whether a disclosure is wrongful”); Venen v. United
States, 38 F.3d 100, 106 (3d Cir. 1994) (“Thus, the propriety of the underlying
collection action, in this instance the validity of the levy, is irrelevant to whether
disclosure is authorized under section 6103 and the basis for liability under
section 7431.”); Huff v. United States, 10 F.3d 1440, 1447 (9th Cir. 1993)
(holding that defects in collection procedures underlying levy notices do not
subject the IRS to liability for disclosure of return information despite provisions
of § 6103(k)(6)); but see Rorex v. Traynor, 771 F.2d 383, 386 (8th Cir. 1985)
(“disclosure in pursuance of an unlawful levy violates the confidentiality
requirements of section 6103(a) and is not authorized under section 6103(k)(6)”
(footnote omitted)).
Further, the plain language of the statute evinces that the validity of the
vehicle by which information is sought is irrelevant. See DiAndre, 968 F.2d at
1053 (“The plain language of section 6103 does not limit in any way what
information the IRS may seek in the course of an investigation. Section 6103
merely imposes certain restrictions on the IRS’s ability to make disclosures in
seeking that information.”); Venen, 38 F.3d at 106 (“The plain language of
section 6103 also mandates the conclusion that the lawfulness of the levy is
irrelevant to whether disclosure is authorized.”); Wilkerson, 67 F.3d at 116 (“The
plain language of the Internal Revenue Code supports the government’s
-7-
contention that the validity of the underlying collection activity is irrelevant in
determining whether a disclosure is wrongful.”). The relevant Treasury
Regulation also supports the proposition:
In connection with the performance of official duties relating to any
examination, collection activity, civil or criminal investigation,
enforcement activity, or other offense under the internal revenue
laws, an officer or employee of the Service . . . is authorized to
disclose return information . . . in order to obtain necessary
information . . . .
....
(6) To establish or verify the financial status or
condition and location of the taxpayer against whom
collection activity is or may be directed, to locate assets
in which the taxpayer has an interest, to ascertain the
amount of any [tax] liability . . . to be collected.
26 C.F.R. § 301.6103(k)(6)-1(b)(6). Neither the plain language of the statute or
the Treasury Regulation authorize this court to look behind the summons to
determine whether they were properly issued; §§ 7431 and 6103 address
improper disclosure, not improper summons.
Finally, we hold that the information sought by means of the summons was
not otherwise reasonably available and that the validity of the summons, as the
means by which the return information was disclosed, is irrelevant to a
determination of whether the disclosure of the return information violated § 6103.
Because the disclosure of return information in this case fell within the “safe
-8-
harbor” exception of § 6103(k)(6), no cause of action arises under § 7431.
Further, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of plaintiff’s
motion to strike Mr. Rehbein’s declaration. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the
judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico.
Entered for the Court
John C. Porfilio
Circuit Judge
-9-