of Public Assistance to determine the truthfulness of defendant's assertion that she had been unemployed and had received welfare payments during 1973 and 1974.
No summons was issued after November 16, 1976. The investigation was concluded on March 10, 1977, when Agent Parks submitted her final report and recommended that the defendant be prosecuted for failure to file income tax returns for 1973 and 1974. Agent Parks' report was reviewed by her immediate superiors and by IRS officials at higher levels. Subsequently, the Regional Counsel recommended to the Department of Justice that the defendant be prosecuted.
On the basis of the evidence presented, the court must conclude that each of the six summonses was issued before the IRS recommendation to the Department of Justice and that no summons was issued after that recommendation. See United States v. LaSalle National Bank, 437 U.S. 298, 98 S. Ct. 2357, 57 L. Ed. 2d 221 (1978). Indeed, no summons was issued after the agent recommended prosecution. See United States v. Genser (Genser II), 595 F.2d 146 (3rd Cir. 1979).
Furthermore, in examining these summonses in light of the elements of good faith discussed in United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58, 85 S. Ct. 248, 13 L. Ed. 2d 112 (1964), the court concludes: that each summons was issued as part of a legitimate investigation to determine the defendant's liability for income tax; that each summons sought relevant information not already in the possession of IRS; and, that each summons was issued only after the required administrative procedures had been followed. Each summons contributed in some way to the civil inquiry by IRS. The summonses were not issued improperly.
The defendant argues that Agent Parks' recommendation for prosecution was improperly influenced by the fact that the agent had been assaulted on April 22, 1976, by Jeffrey Snyder who later married the defendant. There is no evidence to support this contention of improper motive on the part of Agent Parks. It would appear that the motivation for Snyder's assault on the agent was the fact that an investigation of defendant's tax liability was already in progress. This investigation was prompted by the defendant's statements denying that she received income as a nurse. With this denial of tax liability, the defendant placed herself in a category different from that of the other women contacted by IRS, each of whom acknowledged receipt of the nursing income. See testimony of Vernon Carpenter on February 20, 1979. Defendant's selective prosecution argument is without merit.
The motion to suppress evidence will be denied.