Backer v. Commissioner
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
275 F.2d 141 (1960)

- Written by Kate Luck, JD
Facts
Sidney Backer (defendant) was a certified public accountant who prepared tax returns for Walter D. Williams, Jr. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) (plaintiff) investigated Williams’s financial affairs and subpoenaed Backer to testify before an IRS special agent. Williams and Backer had both hired Cubbedge Snow to represent them. Snow accompanied Backer to testify before the special agent, and the special agent stated that Snow, as attorney for the taxpayer, could not be present. Backer declined to be questioned without his attorney, arguing that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) granted a person the right to be accompanied by an attorney at any administrative proceeding that the person was compelled to attend. The commissioner of the IRS filed a petition in federal district court to compel Backer’s attendance without the presence of the taxpayer’s attorney. The commissioner relied on his own policy, which was created prior to enactment of the APA, that required the exclusion of the taxpayer’s attorney at a third-party witness’s questioning. The district court determined that Backer had individually retained and paid Snow to represent him separately from Williams. However, the court required Backer to appear for questioning without Snow in order to avoid the possibility of prejudicing the investigation. Backer appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Tuttle, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.