§982 — Admissibility of documentation maintained in foreign countries
21 cases·2 followed·3 questioned·16 cited—10% support
Statute Text — 26 U.S.C. §982
If the taxpayer fails to substantially comply with any formal document request arising out of the examination of the tax treatment of any item (hereinafter in this section referred to as the “examined item”) before the 90th day after the date of the mailing of such request on motion by the Secretary, any court having jurisdiction of a civil proceeding in which the tax treatment of the examined item is an issue shall prohibit the introduction by the taxpayer of any foreign-based documentation covered by such request.
Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to any documentation if the taxpayer establishes that the failure to provide the documentation as requested by the Secretary is due to reasonable cause.
For purposes of paragraph (1), the fact that a foreign jurisdiction would impose a civil or criminal penalty on the taxpayer (or any other person) for disclosing the requested documentation is not reasonable cause.
For purposes of this section—
The term “formal document request” means any request (made after the normal request procedures have failed to produce the requested documentation) for the production of foreign-based documentation which is mailed by registered or certified mail to the taxpayer at his last known address and which sets forth—
the time and place for the production of the documentation,
a statement of the reason the documentation previously produced (if any) is not sufficient,
a description of the documentation being sought, and
the consequences to the taxpayer of the failure to produce the documentation described in subparagraph (C).
Notwithstanding any other law or rule of law, any person to whom a formal document request is mailed shall have the right to begin a proceeding to quash such request not later than the 90th day after the day such request was mailed. In any such proceeding, the Secretary may seek to compel compliance with such request.
The United States district court for the district in which the person (to whom the formal document request is mailed) resides or is found shall have jurisdiction to hear any proceeding brought under subparagraph (A). An order denying the petition shall be deemed a final order which may be appealed.
The running of the 90-day period referred to in subsection (a) shall be suspended during any period during which a proceeding brought under subparagraph (A) is pending.
For purposes of this section—
The term “foreign-based documentation” means any documentation which is outside the United States and which may be relevant or material to the tax treatment of the examined item.
The term “documentation” includes books and records.
The Secretary, and any court having jurisdiction over a proceeding under subsection (c)(2), may extend the 90-day period referred to in subsection (a).
If any person takes any action as provided in subsection (c)(2), the running of any period of limitations under section 6501 (relating to the assessment and collection of tax) or under section 6531 (relating to criminal prosecutions) with respect to such person shall be suspended for the period during which the proceeding under such subsection, and appeals therein, are pending.
21 Citing Cases
§ 982, which is titled “Criminal forfeiture”). However, 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) (the operative provision for Mr. Hampton and HCM) refers to “[a]ny property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to a violation of [various criminal statutes] . . . or a conspiracy to commit such offense.” Cf. Murillo v. Commission
982 is governed by the provisions of 21 U.S.C. sec. 853. 18 U.S.C. sec. 982(b)(1). Tit. 21 U.S.C. sec. 853 authorizes the Attorney General, among other things, to restore forfeited property to victims and to take any other action to protect the rights of innocent persons which is in the interest of justice. 21 U.S.C. sec. 853(i)(1) (2006). -
982 (2000) by the District Court in an unrelated, non-tax criminal case. R and P have both moved for summary judgment. 1. Held: R was dutybound to comply with the forfeiture order, which is not subject to collateral attack in this court. 2. Held, further, R had no duty to defend against the forfeiture order. 3. Held, further, the Appeals Offic
Section 982 Prior to the trial in this case respondent filed four motions in limine to exclude certain evidence under section 982. Respondent made a continuing objection under section 982 during trial, and the Court directed the parties to argue the issue on brief. After the trial, respondent withdrew any objections under section 982. - 22 - B. Ex