Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Future of IRS Summonses After Supreme Court 'Poselli' Ruling
The Internal Revenue Service has broad powers to collect unpaid taxes. In order to locate a delinquent taxpayer's assets, the IRS can issue summonses seeking records relating to the delinquent taxpayer's financial accounts, as well as accounts held by third parties with whom the delinquent taxpayer has done business. Over the years, courts have split over whether such third parties are entitled to notice that the IRS has summoned their financial records.
In Polselli v. Internal Revenue Service, 143 S. Ct. 1231 (May 18, 2023), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously refused to limit the IRS's ability to issue summonses without notice to situations in which it seeks records of accounts in which a delinquent taxpayer has an interest. While the IRS prevailed on the narrow question presented in Polselli, both the unanimous opinion drafted by Chief Justice Roberts and a concurring opinion drafted by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson make clear that the IRS's authority to summon records of financial accounts belonging to individuals other than a delinquent taxpayer without notice to the affected account holder is not unconstrained. This article discusses the court's decision in Polselli, Justice Jackson's concurring opinion, and the potential for future challenges to the IRS's issuance of summonses without notice.
Background
Title 26 U.S. Code Section 7609(a) sets forth the general rule that "any person" identified in an IRS summons issued to a third-party recordkeeper must receive notice and an opportunity to challenge the summons. Section 7609(c)(2) provides exceptions to the notice requirement and specifies that notice is not required where a summons is "(D) issued in aid of the collection of" either "(i) an assessment made or judgment rendered against the person with respect to whose liability the summons is issued" or "(ii) the liability … of any transferee or fiduciary" of such person.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.