October Term 2013 · Docket 13-301

Does a taxpayer need specific facts to prove an IRS summons serves an improper purpose?

The dispute centers on whether a taxpayer must present specific facts to prove an IRS summons serves an improper purpose before receiving an evidentiary hearing.

Official caption: United States v. Clarke
Latest argument session: 2014-04-23
Latest official Court activity: 2014-04-23
Latest verified event: Argued
Sources analyzed through: Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

2026-08-29 — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

Argument 1 · 2014-04-23

What happened at the argument
Sarah Harrington argued the Eleventh Circuit applied the wrong standard. She stated the taxpayer needs only a plausible inference of improper purpose. She claimed the lower court required too much evidence.
Mr. Marod argued the taxpayer must present specific facts. He stated a plausible inference is insufficient without supporting evidence. He emphasized the need for concrete proof of improper purpose.
Justice Scalia questioned the difference between plausible inference and specific facts. He asked if plausibility requires evidence suggesting the claim is true. He noted the opposing side conceded certain points.
Justice Breyer asked why the government seeks the information. He wanted to understand the purpose behind the summons. He sought clarification on the government's intent.

Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 17-29 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 17-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 35-41 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 35-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 49-3 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 49-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-27 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 37-7 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 37-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 35-45 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 35-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 13-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 21-45 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 21-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 7-7 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 7-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 9-13 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 9-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 3-39 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 3-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 45-49

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case involves a challenge to an IRS summons. The taxpayer argues the government used the summons for an improper purpose. The government argues the taxpayer failed to provide enough evidence to support that claim. The lower court denied the taxpayer's request for a hearing. The taxpayer now seeks a different standard for proving improper purpose.