Episode description

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Polselli v Internal Revenue Service.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the exception in I-R-C § 7609(c)(2)(D)(1) to the notice requirements for an Internal Revenue Service summons on third-party recordkeepers apply to a summons for anyone’s records whenever the IRS thinks that person’s records might somehow help it collect a delinquent taxpayer’s liability?

The case was decided on May 18, 2023.

The Supreme Court held that The exception to the notice requirements described in I-R-C § 7609(c)(2)(D)(1) applies to a summons for anyone’s records, regardless of whether the delinquent taxpayer has a legal interest in the accounts or records summoned. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the unanimous Court.

The IRS has the power to pursue unpaid taxes and the people who owe them. In exercising that power, the IRS may issue a summons, including to third parties, to determine the liability of a taxpayer. In general, such summons require the IRS to give notice to any person identified in the summons. Anyone who is entitled to notice may bring a motion to quash the summons in federal district court, which ordinarily individuals may not do because of the sovereign immunity of the United States.

The statute describes three conditions under which the IRS is exempt from having to provide notice of a summons: (1) the summons must be issued in aid of collection, (2) it must aid the collection of an assessment made or a judgment rendered, and (3) it must aid the collection of assessments or judgments “against the person with respect to whose liability the summons is issued.”

The IRS’s summonses in this case satisfy these three conditions, so the IRS was not required to give notice to Polselli. Because Polselli was not entitled to notice, he also was not entitled to bring a motion to quash the summons. Therefore, the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear his motion to quash.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined, to emphasize that giving notice is the default rule and to caution that reading the exception too broadly would undermine the purpose of the notice-as-default system.

The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.