Alphin v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
809 F.2d 236 · 1987
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably United States v. White (1988), United States v. Michaud (1990)
16 federal appellate · 6 district ·
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
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 7602 · 26 U.S.C. § 7609
Relies on United States v. Powell · United States v. National Bank · United States v. Kis · United States v. Garden State National Bank · United States v. Will
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In order to be entitled to a hearing, the party challenging the summons must allege specific facts in its responsive pleadings, supported by affidavits, from which the court can infer a possibility of some wrongful conduct by the IRS.... “Mere allegations of bad faith will not suffice.” Kis, 658 F.2d at 539 .... If the challenging party cannot refute the government’s prima facie case or cannot factually support a proper affirmative defense, “the district court should dispose of the proceeding on the papers before it and without an evidentiary hearing.” [United States v.] Garden State National Bank, 607 F.2d [61,] 71 [(3d Cir.1979)]. Similarly, the court should not allow discovery at this stage unless the taxpayer makes a preliminary demonstration of abuse.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“a court may not permit its process to be abused. Such an abuse would take place if the summons had been issued for an improper purpose, such as to harass the taxpayer or to put pressure on him to settle a collateral dispute, or for any other purpose reflecting on the good faith of the particular investigation.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“is fairly slight[,J because this is a summary proceeding. It occurs only at the investigative stage of an action against the taxpayer, and “the statute must be read broadly in order to ensure that the enforcement powers of the IRS are not unduly restricted.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.