Brendan Beehan 360x1000
1albion
Maurice B Foley 360x1000
5albion
2paradise
11albion
Thomas Piketty2 360x1000
Margaret Fuller4 360x1000
lifeinmiddlemarch1
Susie King Taylor 360x1000
1paradide
Margaret Fuller5 360x1000
2jesusandjohnwayne
13albion
George F Wil...360x1000
1defense
2albion
1lafayette
storyparadox2
1confidencegames
1falsewitness
9albion
Lafayette and Jefferson 360x1000
Learned Hand 360x1000
1theleasofus
14albion
Adam Gopnik 360x1000
3confidencegames
lifeinmiddlemarch2
Thomas Piketty1 360x1000
Samuel Johnson 360x1000
Gilgamesh 360x1000
Storyparadox1
2gucci
3defense
1madoff
Margaret Fuller 2 360x1000
Tad Friend 360x1000
Margaret Fuller2 360x1000
2confidencegames
199
Margaret Fuller1 360x1000
Susie King Taylor2 360x1000
1empireofpain
James Gould Cozzens 360x1000
1lookingforthegoodwar
2defense
4albion
Maria Popova 360x1000
2falsewitness
299
Anthony McCann2 360x1000
Office of Chief Counsel 360x1000
8albion'
399
storyparadox3
Betty Friedan 360x1000
1gucci
1trap
1jesusandjohnwayne
3paradise
5confidencegames
11632
Thomas Piketty3 360x1000
6confidencegames
Richard Posner 360x1000
AlexRosenberg
2theleastofus
George M Cohan and Lerarned Hand 360x1000
LillianFaderman
2lafayette
12albion
2transadentilist
Spottswood William Robinson 360x1000
2trap
Anthony McCann1 360x1000
3theleastofus
3albion
1lauber
2lookingforthegoodwar
Mary Ann Evans 360x1000
7albion
Ruth Bader Ginsburg 360x1000
1transcendentalist
4confidencegames
6albion
Margaret Fuller3 360x1000
10abion
Margaret Fuller 360x1000
Stormy Daniels 360x1000
Mark V Holmes 360x1000
7confidencegames
Edmund Burke 360x1000
499
Originally Published on forbes.com on October 18th, 2011
______________________________________

CCA 201141017

The IRS Chief Counsel has advised an agent that under current law it is not worth attempting to enforce a summons against an Internet Service Provider to turn over the contents of e-mails in a collections case.  Here is the background:
The Service is seeking to collect more than a quarter million dollars assessed against an apparent shell entity taxpayer which received largetax refunds, arising from improperly claimed tax credits. The revenue officer is seeking to identify sources from which collection may be made, including from the assets of a suspected alter ego of the taxpayer. To learn more about the suspected alter ego’s finances, specifically to whom and where the suspected alter ego may have transferred funds, the revenue officer served a summons upon an ISP headquartered within the Ninth Circuit. The summons requests the contents of the suspected alter ego’s electronic messages and other communications for a period exceeding two years, through the date of the ISP’s compliance with the summons. The revenue officer indicates is particularly interested in receiving the most recent e-mails, those the suspected alter ego sent or received within the last 180 days before the ISP complies with the summons. In response to the summons, the ISP first sent the revenue officer a letter, informing him of some of the relevant SCA limitations contained in 18 U.S.C. §§ 2703(a)-(b) and 2705.
In a subsequent conversation, a representative of the ISP informed Counsel that the ISP would not voluntarily comply with the summons, in large part due to the recent Warshak decision by the Sixth Circuit. You requested our advice on how to proceed with respect to the summons.
The Chief Cousel advised the agent to abandon the request that had been made to the ISP:
….the summons the Service issued to the ISP should be withdrawn for violating the SCA. In particular, the summons requests from a provider of electronic communication services (the ISP) the contents of electronic communications (including all e-mails) for an ISP customer that have been in electronic storage by the ISP for the 180 days preceding the Service’s issuance of the administrative summons and prospectively, after the date of issuance until the date the ISP complies with the summons, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2703(a). This section of the SCA provides, in pertinent part, that a governmental entity may require an ISP or other provider of electronic communications services to disclose the contents of an electronic communication the ISP has maintained in electronic storage for 180 days or less, only pursuant to a warrant issued under the procedures described in the Federal Rules of  Criminal Procedure by a court of competent jurisdiction. The procedures described in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41 for a warrant to seek electronically stored information were not followed by the revenue officer in this case; further, the revenue officer would not be eligible to seek a warrant for the civil (as opposed to criminal) tax law provisions he is engaged in seeking to enforce in this case.
  It is worth noting that the taxpayer’s privacy, here, depended on a decision made by the ISP.  This was not a criminal case and the agent was just seeking leads to find assets.  If the agent had been successful there might not have been a forum in which the legality of the search could have been challenged by the taxpayer.
The Chief Cousel also advised the agent against other attempts to obtain e-mail contents.  There was a fairly extensive discussion of the 2010 Sixth Circuit decision – United States v. Warshak.
The agent was, however advised, that a summons for non-content information would be acceptable:
the current controversy concerning the constitutionality under the Fourth Amendment of the SCA permitting governmental entities to obtain the “content” of more than 180-day old customer e-mails and other electronic communications from an ISP by means short of a court-approved warrant, upon a showing of “probable cause,” should not affect the Service’s ability to continue to use an administrative summons to obtain from an ISP the non-content records concerning a customer’s electronic communication services
 Non-content information includes the email addresses that the account has been communicating with.  It also includes the means of payment for the ISP services, which could provide leads to other assets.