Source: http://supreme.nolo.com/us/380/343/case.html
Timestamp: 2019-12-12 20:55:09
Document Index: 211088002

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 7201', '§ 7207', '§ 7203', '§ 7203', '§ 7201', '§ 7201', '§ 7201', '§ 7203', '§ 7203', '§ 7201', '§ 7201', '§ 7203', '§ 7203', '§ 7207', '§ 7201', '§ 7201', '§ 7201', '§ 7203', '§ 7207']

SANSONE V. UNITED STATES, 380 U. S. 343 - Volume 380 - 1965 - Full Text - US Supreme Court Center - USSC Cases - Nolo
US Supreme Court Center > Volume 380 > SANSONE V. UNITED STATES, 380 U. S. 343 (1965) > Full Text
334 F.2d 287 affirmed.
At the conclusion of the trial, petitioner requested that the jury be instructed that it could acquit him of the charged offense of willfully attempting to evade or defeat taxes in violation of § 7201, but still convict him of either or both of the asserted lesser included offenses of willfully filing a fraudulent or false return, in violation of § 7207, [Footnote 2] or willfully failing to pay his taxes at the time required by law, in violation of § 7203. [Footnote 3] Section 7201 is a felony, providing for a maximum fine of $10,000 and imprisonment for five years. Both §§ 7203 and 7207 are misdemeanors, with maximum prison sentences of one year under each
The requested instructions were denied. [Footnote 4] Petitioner was found guilty by the jury of violating § 7201, and was
Both of these bases of decision were removed by the 1954 Code. Unlike their predecessors in the 1939 Code, §§ 7201, 7203, and 7207, together with other sections clearly applicable to income tax violations, were all placed in the same section (Part I of Chapter 75) of the 1954 Code. Congress specifically stated that it placed all these provisions in the same part of the Code because it wished them to apply to taxes generally, including income taxes. See S.Rep.No.1622, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 147; H.R.Rep.
Berra v. United States, supra, at 351 U. S. 134. See Stevenson v. United States, 162 U. S. 313. But a lesser offense charge is not proper where, on the
As has been held by this Court, the elements of § 7201 are willfulness; the existence of a tax deficiency, Lawn v. United States, 355 U. S. 339, 355 U. S. 361; Spies v. United States, supra, at 317 U. S. 496; and an affirmative act constituting an evasion or attempted evasion of the tax, Spies v. United States, supra. In comparison, § 7203 makes it a misdemeanor willfully to fail to perform a number of specified acts at the time required by law -- the one here relevant being the failure to pay a tax when due. This misdemeanor requires only willfulness and the omission of the required act -- here, the payment of the tax when due. As recognized by this Court in Spies v. United States, supra, at 317 U. S. 499, the difference between a mere willful failure to pay a tax (or perform other enumerated actions) when due under § 7203 and a willful attempt to evade or defeat taxes under § 7201 is that the latter felony involves "some willful commission in addition to the willful omissions that make up the list of misdemeanors." Where there is, in a § 7201 prosecution, a disputed issue of fact as to the existence of the requisite affirmative commission in addition to the § 7203 omission, a defendant would, of course, be entitled to a lesser included offense charge based on § 7203. Cf. Spies v. United States, supra. In this case, however, it is undisputed that petitioner filed
Section 7207 requires the willful filing of a document known to be false or fraudulent in any material manner. The elements here involved are willfulness and the commission of the prohibited act. Section 7207 does not, however, require that the act be done as an attempt to evade or defeat taxes. Conduct could therefore violate § 7207 without violating § 7201 where the false statement, though material, does not constitute an attempt to evade or defeat taxation because it does not have the requisite effect of reducing the stated tax liability. This may be the case, for example, where a taxpayer understates his gross receipts and he offsets this by also understating his deductible expenses. In this example, if the Government, in a § 7201 case, charged tax evasion on the grounds that the defendant had understated his tax by understating his gross receipts, and the defendant contended that this was not so, as the misstatement of gross receipts had been offset by an understatement of deductible expenses, the defendant would be entitled to a lesser
Petitioner makes one final contention. He argues that he could have been acquitted of attempting to evade or defeat his 1957 taxes, in violation of § 7201, but still have been convicted for willfully failing to pay his tax when due in violation of § 7203 or willfully filing a fraudulent return in violation of § 7207, if the jury believed his statement contained in the government-introduced affidavit that, although he knew that profit on the sale in question was reportable for 1957 and that tax was due thereon, he intended to report the sale and pay the 1957 tax at some unspecified future date. The basic premise of this argument
In sum, it is clear here that there were no disputed issues of fact which would justify instructing the jury that it could find that petitioner had committed all the elements
Powered by Justia US Supreme Court Center: SANSONE V. UNITED STATES, 380 U. S. 343 (1965)