- 6 -
"The witness is not exonerated from
answering merely because he declares that in
doing so he would incriminate himself. His
say - so does not of itself establish the
hazard of incrimination. It is for the Court
to say whether this silence is justified."
Hoffman v. Commissioner, 341 U.S. 479 at page 486,
1951. In determining whether there was a hazard of
incrimination the Court first determined whether the
information is incriminating in nature. See United
States v. Rylander, 460 U.S. 752, 1983.
We are satisfied that the information sought by
the subpoena is not incriminating in nature, since it
would consist only of a report of nontaxable income and
the name of the owner of petitioner's residence. There
was no evidence in the record to indicate that
respondent is currently conducting a criminal
investigation of petitioner or has any intention of
doing so in the future.
Petitioner's claim of privilege is based on sheer
speculation as to what might happen if he produced the
subpoenaed information. As it was stated in
Steinbrecher v. Commissioner, 712 F.2d 195, Court of
Appeals 5, 1983, petitioner's asserted fear of
incrimination is far more attenuated than the fear of
prosecution dismissed by the Supreme Court in
Zicarelli, supra.
Upon full consideration of the record before us,
we deny petitioner's motion to quash subpoena duces
tecum, which was filed October 21st, 1996.
The case was set for trial for Tuesday, October 29, 1996, at
2:00 p.m.
When this case was called for trial at 2:00 p.m. on October
29, 1996, counsel for respondent informed the Court that
petitioner had not responded to respondent's subpoena duces
tecum. Respondent, therefore, did not have in hand the documents
requested by her in her subpoena duces tecum. Respondent then
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011