Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Alexander Abraham, James R. Abraham, Miriam Abraham, Ottoabraham Trust, Peter Dehaas, Frederick Frank, Arthur Fried,meryl Gallatin, Evelyn Gollomp, Fred Graber, Edmond A.hajim, F. Warren Hellman, George Heyman, Jr., Allan B.hunter, Bernard Laterman, David Leinbach, Arthur Magill,paul Manheim, William H. Osborn, Andrew G.c. Sage, Williamtaft, Stuart Travis, Arthur Weigner, Sidney Winters,petitioners-appellants. v. United States of America and James R. Borowski, Respondents-appellees
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. - 740 F.2d 2
Argued July 16, 1984.Decided July 18, 1984
Stephen D. Gardner, New York City (John Hartje, Ann-Elizabeth Purintun, Kronish, Lieb, Shainswit, Weiner & Hellman, New York City, on brief), for petitioners-appellants.
Gerald T. Ford, Asst. U.S. Atty., New York City (Rudolph W. Giuliani, U.S. Atty., Leona Sharpe Chamberlin, Asst. U.S. Atty., New York City, on brief), for respondents-appellees.
Before NEWMAN and PRATT, Circuit Judges, and KELLEHER, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of New York (Shirley Wohl Kram, Judge), dismissing a petition to quash two summonses issued by the Internal Revenue Service. The summonses were served upon Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb Inc. ("Lehman Trading") in connection with an audit of the tax liability of its corporate parent, Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb Holding Co. ("Lehman Holding"). The petition to quash is filed on behalf of 24 directors and customers of Lehman Trading. The District Court dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, construing 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7609 (a)(4)(A) literally to mean, as it says, that the provisions of section 7609(a)(1), providing for notice and an opportunity to challenge a summons issued to a third-party record-keeper, are inapplicable to a summons served "on the person with respect to whose liability the summons is issued" and that an investigation into the tax liability of Lehman Holding is an investigation into the tax liability of Lehman Trading since Lehman Holding filed a consolidated return, 26 C.F.R. Sec. 1-1502-6(a) (1966).
We affirm on the well-reasoned decision of the District Court. 582 F.Supp. 257.