Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): to pay the full amount would cause an economic hardship or would be unfair and inequitable. A taxpayer files an offer-in-compromise by completing a Form 656, Offer in Compromise. In most cases, the taxpayer is of a more narrowly tailored statute does not necessarily prevent prosecution under a broader statute, so long as the defendant is not punished under both statutes for the same conduct.”); Hale, 1992 WL 163600, at *3 (same). 9 . See United States v. Beacon Brass Co., 344 U.S. 43, 46, 73 S.Ct. 77, 97 L.Ed. 61 (1952) ("By providing that the sanction of s 145(b) should be 'in addition to other penalties provided by law,’ Congress recognized that some methods of attempting to evade taxes would violate other statutes as well.”). 10 . See Computer Sciences Corp., 689 F.2d at 1187 (<HOLDING>). 11 . It is worth noting that while no other 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the defendant could be prosecuted for making false claims against the government under either the false claims statute 18 usc  287 or the mail and wire fraud statutes 18 usc  1341 1343 (B) holding that in a criminal mail fraud prosecution under 18 usc  1341 where proof of specific intent is required it may be found from a material misstatement of fact made with reckless disregard for truth (C) holding that submitting false claims to the government could be charged under either the false claims act 18 usc  287 or the mail and wire fraud statutes 18 usc  1341 1343 because nothing in the statutory language of the relevant statutory provisions provided any evidence of an intent to withdraw from one statute a coverage it obviously has standing alone because of a coverage also afforded by another statute (D) holding that the provisions of the false claims act allowing suit imposing liability on any person who presented false claims to the federal government did not allow suits against state governments (E) holding that the defendant contractor violated 18 usc  286  a companion statute to the criminal fca  because his claims were false when submitted even though the false claims were ultimately irrelevant to the total amount paid by the government to the contractor
Output (English): holding that the provisions of the false claims act allowing suit imposing liability on any person who presented false claims to the federal government did not allow suits against state governments