The courts have consistently ruled that a typical IRS summons for financial information has no authority.

Click Here.


In its present posture, Schulz’s motion does not satisfy this requirement. As the Supreme Court pointed out in United States v. Bisceglia, IRS summonses have no force or effect unless the Service seeks to enforce them through a §7604 proceeding.
While reversal of our prior precedent is never a matter we regard lightly, we take no small solace in Judge Friendly’s discussion of Colton and Turner in United States v. Kulukundis, 329 F.2d 197 (2d Cir. 1964). There, Judge Friendly, who authored both Colton and Turner, points out that Reisman “seems to destroy the basis underlying decisions of this court which authorized applications to vacate [an IRS] summons (and appeals from their denial) in advance of any judicial proceeding by the Government for their enforcement.” Id. at 199. In light of this,
we view ourselves today as completing a task begun forty years ago and hold that, absent an effort to seek enforcement through a federal court, IRS summonses apply no force to taxpayers, and no consequence whatever can befall a taxpayer who refuses, ignores, or otherwise does not comply with an IRS summons until that summons is backed by a federal court order.

Name: sresponsetosummons.jpg Views: 490 Size: 32.5 KB


However, this reaction by the bank president is atypical. So one might set up an evidence repository wrapping the Summons, Refused for Cause inside a Libel of Review so to convince the IRS agents and attorneys that there is no sense in pursuing the matter because the new suitor is redeeming lawful money pursuant to Title 12 USC §411.