Whether the IRS summons process is subject to quashing and constraint by the First Amendment's protections against chilling or retaliatory government investigations

QUESTIONS PRESENTED QUESTION #1. Is the United States Internal Revenue Service! summons process subject to quashing and constraint by operation of the First Amendment as interpreted through this Court’s line of precedents governing use of regulation and investigation tactics to chill or retaliate against disfavored First Amendment expression, including, inter alia, Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan,” 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis,? and this Court’s pending decision in Missouri v. Biden*?® ! Collectively, the Internal Revenue Service, Internal Revenue Agent (ID #0324589) with the pseudonym “Timothy Bauer” in his official capacity are the “IRS”; the IRS in connection with the Executive Branch is collectively the federal “Government.” 2 372 U.S. 58, 59-64, 67 (1963) (hereinafter “Bantam Books”). 3 600 U.S. 570, 589, 594, 600-01, 603 (2023) (hereinafter “303 Creative”). 4 F.Supp.3d___, 2023 WL 4335270 *73 (116 Fed.R.Serv.3d 559) (W.D. La.) aff’d in part, 83 F.4th 350, 359-68, 372-73, 37794, 398 (5th Cir. 2023), cert. granted, Murthy v. Missouri, 144 S.Ct. 7 (2023) (hereinafter collectively “Biden”). 5 Hereinafter Bantam Books, 303 Creative, Biden, and derivative precedents such as White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1226-28 (9th Cir. 2000), Otto v. City of Boca Raton, Florida, 981 F.3d 854, 859872 (11th Cir. 2020), rehearing en banc denied, 41 F.4th 1271 (11th Cir.); Hoeg M.D. v. Newsom, 652 F.Supp.3d 1172, 1178-79, 1183-1191 (E.D. Cal. 2023), Lightborne Pub., Inc. v. Citizens For Community Values, 2009 WL 778241 *2, 7-8 (S.D. Ohio), and ACLU v. City of Pittsburgh, 586 F.Supp. 417, 421-25 (W.D. Pa. 1984) are collectively denoted the “Bantam Precedents.” li QUESTIONS PRESENTED—Continued (The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit® ruled’ NO,’ the Bantam Precedents don’t apply to an IRS’s investigation and summons at all and thus cannot be invoked to constrain, tailor, or quash an IRS summons.) QUESTION #2. In light of statements in U.S. v. Clarke, and U.S. v. Powell that tax summonses may be quashed or stayed “on any appropriate ground” and not just those in the core Powell factor test, may a taxpayer invoke as independent and/or additional bases for quashing an IRS summons the standards from the Bantam Precedents and/or other precedents and the post-Powell 26 U.S.C. § 7602(e) statute! (prohibiting “use” of a 8 Hereinafter the “Tenth Circuit.” 7 App. 1-29, Docket Number(“DN”) 010110962261, Court of Appeals, for Case Nos. 23-4020, 23-40121, 23-4022, 23-4026 and 23-4027, also at Bishop v. U.S., 2023 WL 8368424 (10th Cir. 2023) (hereinafter the challenged “Order and Judgment,” “decision,” “ruling,” “opinion,” “Order,” or “O.”). 8 E.g. App. 27, 27n.9. ® 573 US. 248, 250, 254-55 (2014) (citing Reisman v. Caplin, 375 U.S. 440, 449 (1964)). 10 379 US. 48, 58 (1964). " Petitioners contended § 7602(e) constituted an independent ground to quash IRS summonses but also operates in tandem with, and in modification of, 26 U.S.C. § 7605(b) (“Restrictions on examination of taxpayer.—No taxpayer shall be subjected to unnecessary examination or investigations ...”), and a line of simpatico post-Powell, extra-Powell federal precedent principles for quashing and narrowing summonses (see, e.g., Highland Capital iii QUESTIONS PRESENTED—Continued “financial status or economic reality examination technique[]” to try to “determine the existence of unreported income of any taxpayer” without “a reasonable indication that there is a likelihood of such unreported income”)? (The Tenth Circuit ruled NO,” the core Powell factor test is Petitioners’ only avenue for quashing a summons, and neither the Bantam Precedents nor 26 U.S.C. § 7602(e) can serve as grounds for quashing or tailoring an IRS summons.) QUESTION #3. Can an IRS agent obtaining IRS summonses enforcement rest his articulation of support for a purportedly legitimate Powell purpose in a Clarke declaration" solely upon the agents’ own declaration assertion of a purported verbal confession from a tar