- 33 -
In reviewing Mr. London's Fifth Amendment claims, it
is worthwhile to review the following statement from our
opinion in Petzoldt v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 661, 684
(1989):
It is well established that the Fifth
Amendment may excuse a taxpayer from responding
to discovery or from testifying in this Court.
Dellacroce v. Commissioner, supra. [83 T.C. 269
(1984).] The witness may invoke the privilege
when he reasonably apprehends a risk of self-
incrimination although no criminal charges are
pending against him. Marchetti v. United States,
390 U.S. 39, 53 (1968); Hoffman v. United States,
341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). The privilege not only
extends to testimony which would support a
conviction, but also to testimony which would
furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed
to prosecute. Hoffman v. United States, supra.
If the testimony is incriminating, then the
propriety of invoking the privilege depends
on whether the risk of prosecution is real.
Zicarelli v. New Jersey State Commission of
Investigation, 406 U.S. 472, 478 (1972);
Marchetti v. United States, supra at 53; Stubbs
v. Commissioner, 797 F.2d 936, 938 n.2 (11th Cir.
1986), affg. per curiam an unreported order and
decision of this Court. It is further well
established that the privilege does not protect
against a fear of prosecution which is remote,
speculative, or fanciful. Zicarelli v. New
Jersey State Commission of Investigation, supra;
Marchetti v. United States, supra; Stubbs v.
Commissioner, supra. However, the privilege must
be accorded liberal construction in favor of the
right it was intended to secure. Hoffman v.
United States, supra.
The Supreme Court stated in Hoffman v. United States,
341 U.S. 479, 488 (1951), that under the Fifth Amendment
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011