Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
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.
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.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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.
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.
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.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?