United States v. Lockyer’s Empirical Analysis
448 F.2d 417 · 1971
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2013 · most notably Beckwith v. United States (1976), Montilla v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (1991)
33 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Johnson v. Zerbst · Escobedo v. Illinois · United States Accardi v. Shaughnessy · United States v. Heffner
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If during the course of an examination, a revenue agent discovers indications of fraud, he shall suspend his activities at the earliest opportunity without disclosing to the taxpayer, his representative or employees, the reason for such suspension. He will then prepare a report of his findings in writing . . . The purpose of this referral report is to enable the Intelligence Division to evaluate the criminal potential of the case and decide whether a joint investigation should be initiated. It is important, therefore, that the referral report contain sufficient information to enable the chief, Intelligence Division, to make a proper evaluation.” Internal Revenue Service, “Audit Technique Handbook for Internal Revenue Agents” § 10(91)(1).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In our view broader meaning was intended. The detailed instructions given require the agent to continue his investigation so as to verify a substantial understatement of income and so as to obtain explanations from the taxpayer in order to discover evidence whether the understatement was deliberate. Therefore, a fair reading of the entire provision convinces us that the civil investigation was intended, consistent with the directive, to continue for sufficient time and' in enough depth so as to provide the Chief, Intelligence Division, with enough information to reach his decision.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“is a far cry from that present in Accardi and also from the directive considered in Heffner and Leahey. The entire design and thrust of the instant directive is that of internal administration.... Therefore, we must hold that the directive was not and is not available to the taxpayer here as a definition of his rights ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.