Marvin L. Barmes and Barbara J. Barmes - Page 11

                                       - 11 -                                         
          Estate Trust, for which petitioners were appointed general                  
          managers and managing agents and, as such, had the same duties              
          and responsibilities as the respective trustees of the trusts.              
          That distinction is critical as far as the Supreme Court is                 
          concerned.  In United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694 (1944), the             
          Supreme Court distinguished Boyd v. United States, supra, in                
          cases where, as here, the requested documents are not those                 
          belonging to the individual personally but are those that the               
          individual holds in his or her capacity as a representative of a            
          so-called collective entity.  The Supreme Court stated:  “indi-             
          viduals, when acting as representatives of a collective group,              
          cannot be said to be exercising their personal rights and duties            
          nor to be entitled to their purely personal privileges.”  Id. at            
          699 (distinguishing Boyd v. United States, supra).  On the                  
          instant record, we find that petitioners, as the appointed                  
          general managers and managing agents of both Sandbar Wholesale              
          Trust and Sandbar Real Estate Trust, have no valid claims under             
          the Fourth Amendment that would prevent production of the re-               
          quested trust documents.7                                                   

               7Nor would we find on the instant record that petitioners              
          have a valid claim under the Fourth Amendment assuming arguendo             
          that the requested trust documents were petitioners’ private                
          documents, rather than trust documents.  “Requiring taxpayers,              
          who institute civil proceedings protesting deficiency notices, to           
          produce records or face dismissal constitutes no invasion of                
          privacy or unlawful search or seizure.”  Edwards v. Commissioner,           
          680 F.2d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1982), affg. per curiam an order of           

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011