- 8 - requests for information would tend to subject them to criminal prosecution.9 Cf. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 444 (1972); Moore v. Commissioner, 722 F.2d 193, 195 (5th Cir. 1984), affg. T.C. Memo. 1983-20. More fundamentally, however, even if petitioners had validly asserted a privilege against self- incrimination in this proceeding, such an assertion would not substitute for relevant evidence, see United States v. Rylander, 460 U.S. 752, 758 (1983); Petzoldt v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 661, 684-685 (1989); Traficant v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 501, 504 (1987), affd. 884 F.2d 258 (6th Cir. 1989), and consequently would not relieve petitioners of the section 7491(a)(1) requirement that they introduce relevant credible evidence as a precondition of our placing the burden of proof on respondent. 9 Respondent obtained critical evidence against petitioners pursuant to a summons issued under sec. 7602, which was enforced in a Federal District Court under sec. 7604. Petitioners do not question, in this proceeding, whether the District Court properly ordered them to produce records in the prior summons enforcement proceeding, and they do not request that we exclude on Fifth Amendment grounds evidence obtained in that proceeding. See, e.g., United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48 (1964) (specifying the requirements for enforcing an Internal Revenue Service summons). Petitioners make no allegation that respondent violated sec. 7602(d), which provides rules regarding the issuance of a summons in the case of a Department of Justice referral for grand jury investigation or criminal prosecution.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011