← All Cases Coverage by Bryan K. Randolph · BrynoDC

Polselli v. IRS

No. 21-1599 SCOTUS · Decided Decided SCOTUS
Argued: Mar 29, 2023 Decided: May 18, 2023


The Facts

The IRS sought financial records from Marat Polselli's banks and law firms as part of a collection action for unpaid taxes. The third parties were Polselli's wife and his attorney. The IRS argued it was not required to notify Polselli. Lower courts were split on whether the notification exception applied when the taxpayer had an interest in the third party's accounts.

The Application

History

The IRS summonses here targeted Polselli's wife and attorney as the direct record holders, not Polselli himself as the person whose tax liability was being determined. Because the summonses identified third parties rather than Polselli as the subjects of investigation, the IRS notification requirement was not triggered, despite Polselli's legal interest in his wife's joint accounts and control over his attorney's communications. The Court found that without explicit statutory language conditioning third-party summons authority on advance taxpayer notification, the IRS could proceed directly to the financial institutions, even where the taxpayer has a recognized stake in the records sought.

The Conclusion

**Unanimous ruling for the IRS.** Jackson wrote the majority. The IRS need not notify a delinquent taxpayer when it summons third-party records, even if the taxpayer has an interest in those accounts.

CourtSupreme Court of the United States
FiledAug 10, 2021
CL Statusactive
View on CourtListener →

No circuit court data for this case.

Cert Granted -
Statusactive
Filed (CL)Aug 10, 2021
View on CourtListener →
SCOTUS TMR-563e1bb4 May 14, 2026

Case Analysis

Overview

The Supreme Court held unanimously that the IRS may summons third-party financial records without notifying the taxpayer under investigation when the taxpayer has a recognizable interest in the third party's financial accounts, such as joint accounts or accounts the taxpayer controls.

Facts

The IRS sought financial records from Marat Polselli's banks and law firms as part of a collection action for unpaid taxes. The third parties were Polselli's wife and his attorney. The IRS argued it was not required to notify Polselli. Lower courts were split on whether the notification exception applied when the taxpayer had an interest in the third party's accounts.

Issue

Whether the IRS must notify a taxpayer when it summons records from third parties in whose accounts the taxpayer has a legal interest, under the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act.

Rule

The IRS notification requirement is triggered when the summons identifies the taxpayer as the person whose liability is being determined; it does not automatically apply when the target taxpayer has an interest in a third party's records, absent specific statutory text requiring notice.

Analysis

The IRS summonses here targeted Polselli's wife and attorney as the direct record holders, not Polselli himself as the person whose tax liability was being determined. Because the summonses identified third parties rather than Polselli as the subjects of investigation, the IRS notification requirement was not triggered, despite Polselli's legal interest in his wife's joint accounts and control over his attorney's communications. The Court found that without explicit statutory language conditioning third-party summons authority on advance taxpayer notification, the IRS could proceed directly to the financial institutions, even where the taxpayer has a recognized stake in the records sought.

Conclusion

**Unanimous ruling for the IRS.** Jackson wrote the majority. The IRS need not notify a delinquent taxpayer when it summons third-party records, even if the taxpayer has an interest in those accounts.

Notes

OT2022. Added via SCOTUS bulk import 2026-05-14

Subscribe on Substack ↗

This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support