- 30 -
evidentiary materials he would not have otherwise
obtained.
The gravamen of petitioner’s complaint appears to be that,
had petitioner (or any other partner) been aware that a criminal
investigation was underway, no one representing the partnership
would have cooperated in a civil examination of the partnership.
Petitioner equates respondent’s silence with fraud, deceit, and
trickery. Petitioner reasons that respondent obtained evidence
by such means from the partnership, and such evidence must be
suppressed in this proceeding.
B. Grounds for Suppression of Evidence
Respondent may not develop a criminal investigation under
the auspices of a civil examination. See, e.g., United States v.
Grunewald, 987 F.2d 531, 534 (8th Cir. 1993). Nevertheless, he
may pursue civil and criminal investigations either
simultaneously or successively. See United States v. Kordel, 397
U.S. 1, 11 (1970); Standard Sanitary Manufacturing Co. v. United
States, 226 U.S. 20, 52 (1912). Respondent must be careful,
however, not to represent to a taxpayer that an investigation of
the taxpayer is routine when, in fact, it is a criminal
investigation. In a criminal case, which this is not,
misrepresentations of that sort may give a court cause to
suppress evidence resulting from the investigation because it was
obtained in violation of the taxpayer’s rights under the Fourth
or Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. See, e.g., United
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011