United States v. HayesUnited States v. Hayes
On September 10,1982, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia determined that appellee John Hayes was not in civil contempt for his failure to comply with a previous court order commanding production of certain documents requested by the Internal Revenue Service.
I.
Hayes created grantor trusts for American investors. As “trustee” he would then invest the trust assets in one of several Panamanian partnerships formed to engage in commodity trading. In each case, Hayes would name Frederick Thom, a Swiss resident, to serve as managing partner of the particular partnership. Manipulation of the partnership assets would result in paper losses which could be passed through, as tax deductions, to the American investors.
The IRS, seeking disclosure of information pertinent to tax shelters sold and managed by Hayes, served him with two summonses in July, 1980.
Because of Hayes’ refusal to produce the partnership records, the district court, on March 12, 1982, ordered him to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court for violating the August 11 order. At a subsequent hearing, Hayes claimed that the records were in Switzerland and that Thom, because of concern over a separate tax investigation, would not release them. He testified that he had made two trips to Switzerland to ask Thom for the documents. Stanley Smith, an attorney interested in the records for other purposes, also testified to similar problems he had encountered in communicating with Thom about their release. The IRS argued that Hayes was able to comply, but that he had failed to exercise his control over Thom, pursuant to the partnership agreement, to ensure cooperation with the court order.
By order of September 10, 1982, the trial court found that Hayes was not in contempt of court.
II.
A party petitioning for a civil contempt finding must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent violated a court order. Northside Realty Associates v. United States,
In this case, the IRS met its prima facie burden by showing that Hayes had not complied with the August 12,1981 order to produce. The district court, however, improperly held that Hayes could not be found guilty of contempt because “the evidence indicate[d] that he made some effort to comply with the summons.” Even if the efforts he did make were “substantial,” “diligent” or “in good faith,” as the court so characterized them in other sections of its order, the fact that he did not make “all reasonable efforts,” United States v. Rizzo,
The application of an improper test was not a mere technical error under these circumstances. While Hayes may have been diligent in going to Switzerland to ask Thom for the documents, the record of the contempt hearing clearly indicates that other avenues for obtaining the material were never explored. Following Thom’s refusal, Hayes did not take any steps pursuant to the partnership agreements to either remove Thom as manager or otherwise compel disclosure.
We note generally that the obedience of judicial orders is of paramount importance and that courts do not lightly excuse a failure to comply. In the case of In re Grand Jury Proceedings. United States v. Bank of Nova Scotia,
III.
Because the district court applied an erroneous legal standard, and because the record shows that Hayes did not make “all reasonable efforts” to obtain partnership records in the possession of Frederick Thom, we vacate the district court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
Notes
. Billy R. Majure, the individual named appellant in this action, was the particular IRS agent who sought the disclosure from Hayes.
. As will be explained below, Hayes did partially comply with the court order. This appeal only concerns his failure to produce foreign partnership records.
. The summonses were issued pursuant to 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 7609(f) & (h) (West Supp.1983).
. The district court is granted jurisdiction to enforce summonses issued under Internal Revenue laws by 26 U.S.C.A. § 7604 (West 1967).
. An order denying a petition for civil contempt in this circumstance is appealable as a final order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See, e.g., Matter of Newton,
. The standard of review on appeal from a denial of civil contempt is whether the district court abused its discretion. Matter of Newton,
. In Bonner v. City of Prichard,
. Other courts have adopted different formulations when discussing what efforts to comply will be required of a party before it can maintain a defense of “inability.” See, e.g., Sidney v. McDonald,
.Our reading of the record satisfies us that Hayes had the ability, as the principal or sole partner in the foreign partnerships, to exercise substantial control over Thom, whom he had appointed as manager. Although the record on appeal contains only discussion of the relevant contracts and not the documents themselves, Hayes does not dispute the fact that he had some power to remove Thom as manager.
. Concerning the second issue raised on appeal, the government has not made a sufficient showing to warrant a finding that the district court abused its discretion in sealing the record in this case.