In the United States v. Clarke et al., 1979, the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving an IRS summons for records and testimony in relation to tax liability investigations. The respondents had refused to comply with these summonses, arguing that they were issued in bad faith by the IRS. They requested an evidentiary hearing to prove this claim of bad faith but were denied at both district court and appellate levels due to lack of factual support for their allegations. The Supreme Court held that taxpayers have a right to examine IRS officials regarding their reasons for issuing a summons when they point out specific facts or circumstances plausibly raising an inference of bad faith. However, mere allegations are not enough; there must be credible evidence suggesting improper motive. In this case, it was determined that the lower courts had used too strict a standard in denying respondents' request for examination of motives behind issuance of summonses by IRS officials.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Clarke et al., case argued that the majority's decision to allow a taxpayer to examine Internal Revenue Service (IRS) officials about their reasons for issuing a summons was incorrect. The dissenters believed this would open up an avenue for taxpayers to delay and obstruct IRS investigations, thereby undermining its ability to enforce tax laws effectively. They contended that allowing such examinations could lead to unnecessary litigation and burden courts with frivolous lawsuits from taxpayers seeking any possible reason or excuse not to comply with an IRS summons. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of U.S.C § 7602(e), arguing it should be read as prohibiting only abusive summonses rather than providing a broad right of examination into every aspect of the issuance process.