## Facts

- Paul C. Washburn, a nonlawyer accountant authorized to practice before the IRS, was convicted in federal court of violating 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2) for willfully aiding in the preparation or presentation of a materially false or fraudulent tax return.
- The conviction stemmed from Washburn preparing a joint return, signing for a taxpayer’s spouse without a power of attorney, and doing so while knowing the spouse had filed a separate return.
- Washburn’s conviction was affirmed on appeal; further post-trial efforts failed, and certiorari was denied.
- The IRS Director of Practice notified Washburn that disbarment was being considered, and the Treasury Department instituted disbarment proceedings under 31 C.F.R. pt. 10 (Circular 230).
- After a hearing, an administrative law judge determined Washburn’s § 7206(2) conviction constituted grounds for disbarment under 31 C.F.R. § 10.50; the Treasury Department’s General Counsel affirmed on internal appeal.
- Washburn filed a federal civil action seeking judicial review, alleging constitutional and procedural defects, principally under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether Treasury’s disbarment structure impermissibly combined prosecutorial and adjudicative functions, creating unconstitutional bias in violation of procedural due process.
2. Whether the allocation of the burden of proof in the administrative proceeding violated due process, including by effectively requiring Washburn to prove innocence or fitness after the conviction.
3. Whether alleged procedural defects in notice, hearing, or internal appeal warranted setting aside the disbarment.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for the defendants and upheld Washburn’s disbarment from practice before the IRS.
- The court held that the disbarment procedures, as applied, provided constitutionally adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard.
- The court rejected the claim that the agency’s internal structure, without a showing of actual bias, violated due process.
- The court concluded that reliance on Washburn’s final criminal conviction as the basis for discipline was lawful and that the burden allocation in context was not constitutionally defective.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial review of agency professional discipline is limited; courts generally do not retry the merits but assess legality, evidentiary support, and compliance with due process.
- A final criminal conviction for misconduct directly related to practice may serve as a sufficient basis for administrative disbarment without relitigation of the underlying criminal facts.
- The combination of investigative/prosecutorial and adjudicative functions within a single agency does not, by itself, violate due process; a challenger must show actual bias, prejudgment, or improper influence.
- Procedural due process in administrative discipline requires notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before an impartial decisionmaker, not duplication of criminal-trial safeguards.
- Once the government establishes a relevant final conviction, requiring the practitioner to come forward with mitigating evidence does not necessarily shift the ultimate burden in a manner that violates due process.

## Conclusion

The court sustained Treasury’s disbarment of an IRS practitioner based on a final § 7206(2) conviction, holding that the agency’s combined functions, burden allocation, and hearing procedures satisfied Fifth Amendment procedural due process and warranted summary judgment for the government officials and the Department.


Washburn v. Shapiro, 409 F. Supp. 3 (S.D. Fla. 1976)