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