opinion: Edwin A. EBERHART, Special Agent of the Intelligence Division of the Internal Revenue Service of the United States, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BROADROCK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. Edwin A. EBERHART, Special Agent of the Intelligence Division of the Internal Revenue Service of the United States, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STEEL EQUIPMENT COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.
  Nos. 14562, 14563.
  United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
  Dec. 14, 1961.
  John Kennedy Lynch, Cleveland, Ohio (Raymond E. Cookston, Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for appellants.
  William A. Friedlander, Dept, of Justice, Wash., D. C. (Louis F. Oberdorfer, Lee A. Jackson, Meyer Rothwacks, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for Edwin A. Eberhart.
  Before WEICK and O’SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges, and DARR, District Judge.
  PER CURIAM.
  These appeals are from orders of the District Court requiring appellants to obey summons issued by a special agent of the Intelligence Division of the Internal Revenue Service pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 1958 ed. § 6501 which required the appearance and production of corporate books and records.
  The special agent filed affidavits indicating his belief that the principal officer and stockholder of the corporations had transactions with them which resulted in taxable income to him which was fraudulently omitted from his 1956 and 1957 income tax returns.
  A hearing was conducted by the District Judge at which testimony was taken in behalf of the Government and the defendants. At the conclusion of the hearing the District Judge found that special agent had reason to suspect that there was fraud in the handling of travel expenses and he entered the orders from which these appeals have been taken.
  No previous examination had been made of the books and records of the Development Corporation.
  In the Steel Equipment case, it is contended that the examination was unnecessary because the corporation’s books had previously been examined and that the' statute of limitations had run with respect to the year 1955 and previous years. 26 U.S.C. 1958 ed. § 7605; 26 U.S.C. 1958 ed. § 6501. The Secretary or his delegate had served a letter notifying the corporation that an additional inspection of the records was necessary This letter was sufficient under the statute to authorize the examination with respect to the years 1956 and 1957. The question remains whether inspection of records for the years allegedly barred by the statute of limitations was necessary. The statute of limitations does not apply to fraudulent returns. 26 U.S.C. § 6501 (c).
  While the evidence with respect to the fraudulent travel expenses concerned the tax years 1956 and 1957, there was also some testimony as to lack of records to support the deductions claimed for travel expenses in previous years. The District Judge did not limit the investigation to the later years as there was at least an inference that fraud extended into some of the previous years. In our judgment, this was sufficient to authorize the examinations. Foster v. United States, 265 F.2d 183 (C.A.2); Corbin Deposit Bank of Corbin v. United States, 244 F.2d 177 (C.A.6); Peoples Deposit Bank & Trust Co. v. United States, 212 F.2d 86 (C.A.6). The findings of fact of the District Judge as well as inferences drawn therefrom are binding on us unless clearly erroneous. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278, 80 S.Ct. 1190, 4 L.Ed.2d 1218. We do not find them clearly erroneous,
  - There is no merit in the contention that the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution were violated. United States v. Wallace & Tiernan Co., 336 U.S. 793, 69 S.Ct. 824, 93 L.Ed. 1042; Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186, 66 S.Ct. 494, 90 L.Ed. 614; United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694, 64 S.Ct. 1248, 88 L.Ed. 1542; Goldberg v. Truck Drivers Local Union No. 299, etc., 293 F.2d 807 (C.A.6).
  The orders of the District Court are affirmed.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to issues that may appear in civil law issues involving government actors. The issue is: "Did the court rule for the government in an issue related to agency acquisition of information (e.g. physical inspections, searches, subpoenas, records, etc)? Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".