revenue agent were given without these warnings and should therefore not be used as evidence against him. For this contention he relied exclusively on our case of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 456 (1966). The District Court rejected this contention as did the Court of Appeals in affirming. 376 F. 2d 595. We granted certiorari to decide whether the Miranda case calls for reversal. We hold that it does. There can be no doubt that the documents and oral statements given by petitioner to the government agent and used against him were strongly incriminating.' In the Miranda case this Court's opinion stated at some length the constitutional reasons why one in custody who is interrogated by officers about matters that might tend to incriminate him is entitled to be warned "that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning, should be so desire.” 384 U.S., at 479. The Government here seeks to escape application of the Miranda warnings on two arguments: (1) that these questions were asked as a part of a routine tax investigation where no criminal proceedings might even be brought, and (2) that the petitioner had not been put in jail by the officers questioning him, but was there for an entirely separate offense. These differences are too minor and shadowy to justify a departure from the well-considered conclusions of Miranda with reference to warnings to be given to a person held in custody. It is true that a "routine tax investigation" may be initiated for the purpose of a civil action rather than criminal prosecution. To this extent tax investigations differ from investigations of murder, robbery, and other crimes. But tax investigations frequently lead to criminal prosecutions, just as the one here did. In fact, the last visit of the revenue agent to the jail to question petitioner took place only eight days before the full-fledged criminal investigation concededly began. And as the investigating revenue agent was compelled to admit, there was always the possibility during his investigation that his work would end up in a criminal prosecution. We reject the contention that tax investigations are immune from the Miranda requirements for warnings to be given a person in custody. The Government also seeks to narrow the scope of the Miranda holding by making it applicable only to questioning one who is "in custody" in connection with the very case under investigation. There is no substance to such a distinction, and in effect it goes against the whole purpose of the Miranda decision which was designed to give meaningful protection to Fifth Amendment rights. We find nothing in the Miranda opinion which calls for a curtailment of the warnings to be given persons under interrogation by officers based on the reason why the person is in custody. In speaking of "custody" the language of the Miranda opinion is clear and unequivocal: "To summarize we hold that when an individual is taken into custody, or otherwise deprived of his freedom by the authorities in any significant way and is subjected to questioning, the privilege against self-incrimination is in jeopardy." 384 U.S., at 479. And the opinion goes on to say that the person so held must be given the warnings about his right to be silent and his right to have a lawyer. Thus, the courts below were wrong in permitting the introduction of petitioner's self-incriminating evidence given without warning of his right to be silent and right to counsel. The cause is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE STEWART joined, dissented in a separate opinion. 2 Internal Revenue Agent Lawless testified that on October 30, 1964, he interviewed petitioner in the Florida State Penitentiary to determine if the 1960 return had been prepared by petitioner and to obtain petitioner's consent in writing to extend the Statute of Limitations on the 1960 return. At this interview petitioner identified the 1960 tax retura and the signature thereon as his; he also signed the extension form. Again on March 2 1965, Agent Lawless interviewed petitioner at the penitentiary, and this time petitioner identified the 1961 tax return and signature thereon as his and signed an extension form for this return. DELEGATION ORDER NO. 15 (Rev. 2) (Effective December 4, 1965) Inspection of Certain Returns by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Pursuant to authority contained in 26 CFR 301.6103 (a)-100 and 26 CFR 301.9000-1, District Directors, Service Center Directors and the Director of International Operations are authorized: 1. To make available for inspection by any duly authorized officer or employee of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare any individual income tax return made in respect of a tax imposed by chapter 1 or chapter 2 of the Internal Revenue Code, as may be needed in its administration of the provisions of Title II of the Social Security Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. ch. 7). 2. To make available for inspection by any duly authorized officer or employee of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare the retained portion of any employer's return of withheld Social Security taxes (e.g. Forms 941, 942 or 943) as may be needed in its administration of the provisions of Title II of the Social Security Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. ch. 7). 3. This authorization includes the furnishing of a copy or a certified copy of the return or any data on such return or retained portion. 4. The authority delegated herein may be redelegated, but not lower than to Division Chiefs except that the Director of International Operations may redelegate to the Director's Representative in Puerto Rico. 5. This Order supersedes Delegation Order No. 15 (Rev. 1) issued May 13, 1966. [C.B. 1966–1, 587]. SHELDON S. COHEN, (Filed by the Office of the Federal Register on December 6, 1968; 8:46 a.m., and published in the issue of the Federal Register for December 7, 1968, 33 F.R. 18243) DELEGATION ORDER NO. 107 (Effective August 15, 1968) Authority to determine that certain "savings institutions" do not intend to avoid taxes by paying dividends or interest for periods representing more than 12 months. 1. The authority granted to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue under 26 CFR 1.461-1(e) (3) (ii) to determine that an organization referred to therein does not intend to avoid taxes (and therefore be permitted to deduct one-tenth of the amount of dividends or interest not allowed as a deduction for a taxable year under 26 CFR 1.461-1 (e) (1) in each of ten succeeding taxable years) is hereby delegated to the following officials: (a) Assistant Regional Commissioners (Appellate), (b) District Directors, (c) Director of International Operations, (d) Chiefs, Appellate Branch Offices, (e) Associate Chiefs, Appellate Branch Offices, (h) Chiefs of District Audit Divisions. 2. The authority delegated to Assistant Chiefs, Appellate Branch Offices, is limited to cases in which the net deficiency or the net overassessment determined by the District Director or by the Director of International Operations did not exceed $50,000 and the determination of the Appellate Division does not involve a net overassessment in excess of $50,000. 3. This authority may be redelegated only by District Directors and the Director of International Operations, who may redelegate to the Chief of Review Staff (or to the Chief of Technical Branch where that position has been established) and Chief of Conference Staff. SHELDON S. COHEN, (Filed by the Office of the Federal Register on August 21, 1968, 8:51 a.m., and published in the issue of the Federal Register for August 22, 1968, 33 F.R. 11936) DELEGATION ORDER NO. 108 (Effective November 1, 1968) Delegation of authority to compile and publish ordinances 1. Pursuant to the authority vested in the Commissioner of Internal Revenue by Treasury Department Order No. 150-67, dated October 11, 1968 [page 966, this Bulletin], there is hereby delegated to the Director, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division, the authority under Chapter 44, Title 18, United States Code, to compile, revise annually, publish in the Federal Register, and distribute the list of published laws of political subdivisions of States determined by him to be relevant to the enforcement of Chapter 44, Title 18, United States Code, pertaining to firearms. 2. This authority may not be redelegated. WILLIAM H. SMITH, (Filed by the Office of the Federal Register on Nov. 4, 1968, 8:49 a.m., and published in the issue of the Federal Register for Nov. 5, 1968, 33 F.R. 16154) EXECUTIVE ORDER 11432 CONTROL OF ARMS IMPORTS By virtue of the authority vested in me by Section 414 of the Mutua! Security Act of 1954, as amended (22 U.S.Č. 1934), and Section 301 of Title 3 of the United States Code, and as President of the United States, it is ordered as follows: SECTION 1. Section 301 of Executive Order No. 10973 of November 3, 1961, is hereby amended to read as follows: SEC. 301. Department of the Treasury. There are hereby delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury: (a) The function conferred upon the President by the second sentence of Section 612 of the Act. (b) So much of the functions conferred upon the President by Section 414 of the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as amended, as relate to control of the import of arms, ammunition and implements of war, including technical data relating thereto. In carrying out such functions the Secretary of the Treasury shall consult with appropriate agencies, and on matters affecting world peace, the external security and foreign policy of the United States he shall be guided by the views of the Secretary of State. Designations, including changes in designations, of articles subject to import control under Section 414 shall have the concurrence of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense. SEC. 2. All regulations issued and presently in effect pursuant to Section 414 of the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as amended, shall, insofar as they relate to control of the import of arms, ammunition and implements of war, including technical data relating thereto, continue in effect and be administered by the Secretary of the Treasury until revoked or superseded by him. All pending applications for import licenses not acted upon by the Secretary of State at the date of this order shall be transferred to the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriate action. THE WHITE HOUSE, October 22, 1968. LYNDON B. JOHNSON (Filed by the Office of the Federal Register on Oct. 22, 1968, 12:49 p.m., and published in the issue of the Federal Register for Oct. 24, 1968, 33 F.R. 15701) REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 1 OF 1968 Prepared by the President and transmitted to the Senate and the House of Representatives in Congress assembled, February 7, 1968, pursuant to the provisions of chapter 9 of title 5 of the United States Code1 NARCOTICS; DRUG ABUSE CONTROL SECTION 1. Transfer of functions from Treasury Department. There are hereby transferred to the Attorney General: (a) Those functions of the Secretary of the Treasury which are administered through or with respect to the Bureau of Narcotics. (b) All functions of the Bureau of Narcotics, of the Commissioner of Narcotics, and of all other officers, employees and agencies of the Bureau of Narcotics. (c) So much of other functions or parts of functions of the Secretary of the Treasury and the Department of the Treasury as is incidental to or necessary for the performance of the functions transferred by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. * SEC. 3. Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. (a) There is established in the Department of Justice an agency which shall be known as the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. The Bureau shall be headed by a Director who shall be appointed by the Attorney General to a position in the competitive service. The Director shall perform such duties as the Attorney General shall prescribe and shall receive compensation at the rate now or hereafter provided for Level V of the Executive Schedule Pay Rates (5 U.S.C. 5316). * SEC. 4. Abolition. The Bureau of Narcotics in the Department of the Treasury, including the office of Commissioner of Narcotics (21 U.S.C. 161), is hereby abolished. The Secretary of the Treasury shall make such provision as he may 1 Effective Apr. 8, 1968, under the provisions of and pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 906. deem necessary with respect to terminating those affairs of the Bureau of Nar cotics not otherwise provided for in this reorganization plan. LYNDON B. JOHNSON (Filed by the Office of the Federal Register on Apr. 10, 1968; 10:35 a.m., and published in the issue of the Federal Register Apr. 11, 1968, 33 F.R. 5611) The Revenue Service sets forth the information to be included in applications filed by religious and apostolic organizations seeking exemption under section 501 (d) of the Code. 26 CFR 601.201: Rulings and determination letters. (Also Part I, Section 501; 1.501(a)-1.) SECTION 1. PURPOSE Rev. Proc. 68-24 This Revenue Procedure sets forth the information to be included in exemption applications filed by religious and apostolic organizations claiming exemption from Federal income tax under section 501 (d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. SEC. 2. BACKGROUND .01 Section 1.501 (d)-1 of the Income Tax Regulations relative to religious and apostolic associations or corporations reads, in part, as follows: (a) Religious or apostolic associations or corporations are described in section 501 (d) and are exempt from taxation under section 501 (a) if they have a common treasury or community treasury, even though they engage in business for the common benefit of the members, provided each of the members includes (at the time of filing his return) in his gross income his entire pro rata share, whether distributed or not, of the net income of the association or corporation for the taxable year of the association or corporation ending with or during his taxable year *. .02 An organization seeking an exemption ruling or determination letter under section 501 (d) of the Code is required by section 1.501 (a)−1(a)(3)(i) of the regulations to file an application (in duplicate) with the District Director of Internal Revenue for the district where it would otherwise be required to file a tax return. Revenue Procedure 67-3, C.B. 1967-1, 560, outlines the procedures with respect to the filing of such exemption applications. .03 Because of the small number of such organizations, a specific application form is not prescribed for applicants under section 501 (d). However, where an organization seeks an exemption letter under section 501 (d), section 1.501 (a)-1 (a) (3) (i) of the regulations provides that the application for exemption must show the character of the organization, the purpose for which it was organized, its actual activities, the sources of its income and receipts and the disposition thereof, whether any of its income or receipts is credited to surplus or may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, and in general all facts relating to its operations which affect its righ: to exemption. |