The U.S. Supreme Court refers to this portion of section 7212 as the “Omnibus Clause” and, on March 21, 2018, the Court ruled that the phrase “due administration” of the Federal tax law does not cover routine administrative IRS procedures that are near-universally applied to all taxpayers.Whoever [ . . . ] corruptly or by force or threats of force (including any threatening letter or communication) obstructs or impedes, or endeavors to obstruct or impede, the due administration of this title, shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $5,000, or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both [ . . . ]
In a 7-2 decision (with Thomas and Alito dissenting), the Court stated:
---from slip op., Marinello v. United States, case no. 16-1144 (March 21, 2018).Rather, the clause as a whole refers to specific interference with targeted governmental tax-related proceedings, such as a particular investigation or audit.
[ . . . ]
[T]o secure a conviction under the Omnibus Clause [of Internal Revenue Code section 7212(a)], the Government must show (among other things) that there is a “nexus” between the defendant’s conduct and a particular administrative proceeding, such as an investigation, an audit, or other targeted administrative action. That nexus requires a “relationship in time, causation, or logic with the [administrative] proceeding.” [bracketed text in the original; citation not reproduced] By “particular administrative proceeding” we do not mean every act carried out by IRS employees in the course of their “continuous, ubiquitous, and universally known” administration of the Tax Code. [ . . . ] Just because a taxpayer knows that the IRS will review her tax return every year does not transform every violation of the Tax Code into an obstruction charge [under section 7212].
In addition to satisfying this nexus requirement, the Government must show that the proceeding was pending at the time the defendant engaged in the obstructive conduct or, at the least, was then reasonably foreseeable by the defendant. [ . . . ] It is not enough for the Government to claim that the defendant knew the IRS may catch on to his unlawful scheme eventually.