In the United States v. Clarke case of 2013, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a taxpayer has a right to examine Internal Revenue Service (IRS) officials about their reasons for issuing a summons when there is evidence of bad faith. The dispute arose when Dynamo Holdings Limited Partnership was audited by the IRS and asked to produce certain records. After refusing, citing they were unnecessary, an IRS summons was issued which Dynamo resisted on grounds of improper purpose including retaliation and harassment. Lower courts denied them an evidentiary hearing but upon reaching the Supreme Court, it held that taxpayers are entitled to conduct examinations into IRS officials' motives if they can point to specific facts or circumstances plausibly raising an inference of bad faith.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Clarke, Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, argued that a taxpayer should not be able to examine IRS officials about their reasons for issuing a summons unless he can point to specific facts or circumstances plausibly raising an inference of bad faith. The majority's decision would allow taxpayers to delay tax collection by demanding depositions based on nothing more than bare allegations or conjecture. This could undermine the effectiveness of the IRS in performing its duties and disrupt its operations unnecessarily. Furthermore, it would create an imbalance between taxpayers who comply with summonses without question and those who seek delays through litigation tactics.