- 14 -
claim the privilege against self-incrimination, there must be a
“real and appreciable danger” from “substantial hazards of self
incrimination”, and the individual must have “‘reasonable cause
to apprehend (such) danger from a direct answer’ to questions
posed to him”. United States v. Neff, 615 F.2d 1235, 1239 (9th
Cir. 1980)(quoting Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486
(1951)). “A taxpayer cannot base his failure either to cooperate
with the IRS or to produce records on a generalized fear of self-
incrimination. The fifth amendment privilege cannot be used as a
method of evading payment of lawful taxes.” Edelson v.
Commissioner, 829 F.2d 828, 832 (9th Cir. 1987), affg. T.C. Memo.
1986-223.
Respondent confirmed at trial and represented to both the
Court and petitioner that there were no open, contemplated,
anticipated, or planned criminal investigations of petitioner.
Petitioner, when asked, indicated she had no specific basis for
fearing criminal action, but nevertheless insisted on asserting
her Fifth Amendment claim as she felt it was inappropriate to
testify against herself.
THE COURT: Are you talking about your right against
self-incrimination?
MS. TAYLOR: Yes, in the Fifth Amendment.
THE COURT: And do you have some other right that
you’re standing on beside that one?
MS. TAYLOR: No, just the Fifth.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011