Source: https://m.openjurist.org/424/us/648
Timestamp: 2020-01-26 22:13:43
Document Index: 245174432

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 7203', '§ 7203', '§ 7203', '§ 7203', '§ 7203', '§ 7203', '§ 7203', '§ 7203', '§ 7203', '§ 7203', '§ 7203', '§ 1084', '§ 165', '§ 165', '§ 7203']

424 U.S. 648 - Garner v. United States
The information revealed in the preparation and filing of an income tax return is, for purposes of Fifth Amendment analysis, the testimony of a "witness," as that term is used herein. Since Garner disclosed information on his returns instead of objecting, his Fifth Amendment claim would be defeated by an application of the general requirement that witnesses must claim the privilege. Garner, however, resists the application of that requirement, arguing that incriminating disclosures made in lieu of objection are "compelled" in the tax-return context. He relies specifically on three situations in which incriminatory disclosures have been considered compelled despite a failure to claim the privilege.10 But in each of these narrowly defined situations, some factor not present here made inappropriate the general rule that the privilege must be claimed. In each situation the relevant factor was held to deny the individual a "free choice to admit, to deny, or to refuse to answer." Lisenba v. California, 314 U.S. 219, 241, 62 S.Ct. 280, 292, 86 L.Ed. 166, 182 (1941). For the reasons stated below, we conclude that no such factor deprived Garner of that free choice.
Garner relies first on cases dealing with coerced confessions, E. g., Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), where the Court has required the exclusion of incriminating statements unless there has been a knowing and intelligent waiver of the privilege regardless of whether the privilege has been claimed. Id., at 467-469, 475-477, 86 S.Ct. at 1624-1625, 1628-1629, 16 L.Ed.2d at 719-721, 724-725. Garner notes that it has not been shown that his failure to claim the privilege was such a waiver.
Garner relies next on Mackey v. United States, 401 U.S. 667, 91 S.Ct. 1160, 28 L.Ed.2d 404 (1971), the relevance of which can be understood only in light of Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), and Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62, 88 S.Ct. 709, 19 L.Ed.2d 906 (1968). In the latter cases the Court considered whether the Fifth Amendment was a defense in prosecutions for failure to file the returns required of gamblers in connection with the federal occupational and excise taxes on gambling. The Court found that any disclosures made in connection with the payment of those taxes tended to incriminate because of the pervasive criminal regulation of gambling activities. Marchetti, supra, 390 U.S., at 48-49, 88 S.Ct. at 702-703, 19 L.Ed.2d at 897-898; Grosso, supra, 390 U.S., at 66-67, 88 S.Ct. at 712-713, 19 L.Ed.2d at 911-912. Since submitting a claim of privilege in lieu of the returns also would incriminate, the Court held that the privilege could be exercised by simply failing to file.11
In Mackey, the disclosures required in connection with the gambling excise tax had been made before Marchetti and Grosso were decided. Mackey's returns were introduced in a criminal prosecution for income tax evasion. Although a majority of the Court considered the disclosures on the returns to have been compelled incriminations, 401 U.S., at 672, 91 S.Ct., at 1163, 28 L.Ed.2d, at 408 (plurality opinion); Id., at 704-705, 91 S.Ct. 1165-1166, 28 L.Ed.2d 427-428 (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment); Id., at 713, 91 S.Ct. 1170, 28 L.Ed.2d 432 (Douglas, J., dissenting), Mackey was not immunized against their use because Marchetti and Grosso were held nonretroactive. 401 U.S., at 674-675, 91 S.Ct., at 1164-1165, 28 L.Ed.2d, at 409-410 (plurality opinion); Id., at 700-701, 91 S.Ct. 1184, 28 L.Ed.2d 425-426 (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment).12 Garner assumes that if Mackey had made his disclosures after Marchetti and Grosso, they could not have been used against him. He then concludes that since Mackey would have been privileged to file no returns at all, Mackey stands for the proposition that an objection at trial always suffices to preserve the privilege even if disclosures have been made previously.
Assuming that Garner otherwise reads Mackey correctly,13 we do not think that case should be applied in this context. The basis for the holdings in Marchetti and Grosso was that the occupational and excise taxes on gambling required disclosures only of gamblers, the great majority of whom were likely to incriminate themselves by responding. Marchetti, supra, 390 U.S., at 48-49, 57, 88 S.Ct. at 702-703, 707, 19 L.Ed.2d at 897-898, 902; Grosso, supra, 390 U.S., at 66-68, 88 S.Ct., at 712-714, 19 L.Ed.2d at 911-912. Therefore, as in the coerced-confession cases, any compulsion to disclose was likely to compel self-incrimination.14 Garner is differently situated. Although he disclosed himself to be a gambler, federal income tax returns are not directed at those " 'inherently suspect of criminal activities.' " Marchetti, supra, 390 U.S. at 52, 88 S.Ct., at 704, 19 L.Ed.2d, at 900. As noted in Albertson v. SACB, 382 U.S. 70, 79, 86 S.Ct. 194, 199, 15 L.Ed.2d 165, 172 (1965), "the questions in (an) income tax return (are) neutral on their face and directed at the public at large." The great majority of persons who file income tax returns do not incriminate themselves by disclosing their occupation. The requirement that such returns be completed and filed simply does not involve the compulsion to incriminate considered in Mackey.15
The policemen in Garrity were threatened with punishment for a concededly valid exercise of the privilege, but one in Garner's situation is at no such disadvantage. A § 7203 conviction cannot be based on a valid exercise of the privilege. This is implicit in the dictum of United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 47 S.Ct. 607, 71 L.Ed. 1037 (1927), that the privilege may be claimed on a return.16 Furthermore, the Court has held that an individual summoned by the Service to provide documents or testimony can rely on the privilege to defend against a § 7203 prosecution for failure to "supply any information." See United States v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389, 54 S.Ct. 223, 78 L.Ed. 381 (1933) (Murdock II ); United States v. Murdock, 284 U.S. 141, 52 S.Ct. 63, 76 L.Ed. 210 (1931) (Murdock I ), disapproved on other grounds, Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n, 378 U.S. 52, 84 S.Ct. 1594, 12 L.Ed.2d 678 (1964).17 The Fifth Amendment itself guarantees the taxpayer's insulation against liability imposed on the basis of a valid and timely claim of privilege, a protection broadened by § 7203's statutory standard of "willfulness."18
Since a valid claim of privilege cannot be the basis for a § 7203 conviction. Garner can prevail only if the possibility that a claim made on the return will be tested in a criminal prosecution suffices in itself to deny him freedom to claim the privilege. He argues that it does so, noting that because of the threat of prosecution under § 7203 a taxpayer contemplating a claim of privilege on his return faces a more difficult choice than does a witness contemplating a claim of privilege in a judicial proceeding. If the latter claims the protection of the Fifth Amendment, he receives a judicial ruling at that time on the validity of his claim, and he has an opportunity to reconsider it before being held in contempt for refusal to answer. Cf. Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S., at 460-461, 95 S.Ct., at 592-593, 42 L.Ed.2d, at 584-585. A § 7203 prosecution, however, may be brought without a preliminary judicial ruling on a claim of privilege that would allow the taxpayer to reconsider.19
In essence, Garner contends that the Fifth Amendment guarantee requires such a preliminary-ruling procedure for testing the validity of an asserted privilege. It may be that such a procedure would serve the best interests of the Government as well as of the taxpayer, cf. Emspak v. United States, 349 U.S. 190, 213-214, 75 S.Ct. 687, 709-710, 99 L.Ed. 997, 1013-1014 (1955) (Harlan, J., dissenting), but we certainly cannot say that the Constitution requires it. The Court previously has considered Fifth Amendment claims in the context of a criminal prosecution where the defendant did not have the benefit of a preliminary judicial ruling on a claim of privilege. It has never intimated that such a procedure is other than permissible. Indeed, the Court has given some measure of endorsement to it. In Murdock I, supra, an individual was prosecuted under predecessors of § 7203 for refusing to make disclosures after being summoned by the Bureau of Internal Revenue.20 In this Court he contended, apparently on statutory grounds, that there could be no prosecution without a prior judicial enforcement suit to allow presentation of his claim of privilege to a court for a preliminary ruling. The Court said:
See also Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155, 167-170, 75 S.Ct. 668, 675-677, 99 L.Ed. 964, 974-976 (1955); Emspak v. United States, supra, 349 U.S., at 213-214, 75 S.Ct., at 709-710, 99 L.Ed., at 1013-1014 (Harlan, J., dissenting).
In summary, we conclude that since Garner made disclosures instead of claiming the privilege on his tax returns his disclosures were not compelled incriminations.21 He therefore was foreclosed from invoking the privilege when such information was later introduced as evidence against him in a criminal prosecution.
This case ultimately turns on a simple question whether the possibility of being prosecuted under 26 U.S.C. § 7203 for failure to make a return compels a taxpayer to make an incriminating disclosure rather than claim the privilege against self-incrimination on his return. In discussing this question, the Court notes that only a "willful" failure to make a return is punishable under § 7203, and that "a defendant could not properly be convicted for an erroneous claim of privilege asserted in good faith." Ante, at 663, n. 18. Since a good-faith erroneous assertion of the privilege does not expose a taxpayer to criminal liability, I would hold that the threat of prosecution does not compel incriminating disclosures in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The protection accorded a good-faith assertion of the privilege effectively preserves the taxpayer's freedom to choose between making incriminating disclosures and claiming his Fifth Amendment privilege, and I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals for that reason.
I accept the proposition that a preliminary ruling is not a prerequisite to a § 7203 prosecution. But cf. Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155, 165-170, 75 S.Ct. 668, 674-677, 99 L.Ed. 964, 973-976 (1955). But it does not follow, and Murdock I does not hold, that the absence of a preliminary ruling is of no import in considering whether a defense of good-faith assertion of the privilege is constitutionally required.* It is one thing to deny a good-faith defense to a witness who is given a prompt ruling on the validity of his claim of privilege and an opportunity to reconsider his refusal to testify before subjecting himself to possible punishment for contempt. See, E. g., Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449, 460-461, 95 S.Ct. 584, 592-593, 42 L.Ed.2d 574, 584-585 (1975). It would be quite another to deny a good-faith defense to someone like petitioner, who may be denied a ruling on the validity of his claim of privilege until his criminal prosecution, when it is too late to reconsider. If, contrary to the undisputed fact, a taxpayer had no assurance of either a preliminary ruling or a defense of good-faith assertion of the privilege, he could claim the privilege only at the risk that an erroneous assessment of the law of self-incrimination would subject him to criminal liability. In that event, I would consider the taxpayer to have been denied the free choice to claim the privilege, and would view any incriminating disclosures on his tax return as "compelled" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. Only because a good-faith erroneous claim of privilege entitles a taxpayer to acquittal under § 7203 can I conclude that petitioner's disclosures are admissible against him.
Garner was also indicted for aiding and abetting the violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1084, the substantive offense involving transmission of bets and betting information. The trial judge acquitted him on this count at the close of the Government's case.
The panel of the Court of Appeals that originally heard the case had accepted Garner's contention and reversed, one judge dissenting. 501 F.2d 228. The en banc court affirmed the conviction by a 7-to-5 vote.
In Sullivan, Mr. Justice Holmes, writing for the Court, said: "It would be an extreme if not an extravagant application of the Fifth Amendment to say that it authorized a man to refuse to state the amount of his income because it had been made in crime. But if the defendant desired to test that or any other point he should have tested it in the return so that it could be passed upon." 274 U.S., at 263-264, 47 S.Ct., at 607-608, 71 L.Ed., at 1040.
The Court also has held, analogously, that a witness loses the privilege by failing to claim it promptly even though the information being sought remains undisclosed when the privilege is claimed. United States v. Murdock, 284 U.S. 141, 148, 52 S.Ct. 63, 64, 76 L.Ed. 210, 212 (1931), disapproved on other grounds, Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n, 378 U.S. 52, 84 S.Ct. 1594, 12 L.Ed.2d 678 (1964); see Rogers v. United States, 340 U.S., at 371, 71 S.Ct., at 440, 95 L.Ed., at 348.
This conclusion has not always been couched in the language used here. Some cases have indicated that a nonclaiming witness has "waived" the privilege, see, E. g., United States ex rel. Vajtauer v. Commissioner of Immigration, 273 U.S. 103, 113, 47 S.Ct. 302, 306, 71 L.Ed. 560, 566 (1927). Others have indicated that such a witness testifies "voluntarily," see, E. g., Rogers v. United States, supra, 340 U.S., at 371, 71 S.Ct., at 440, 95 L.Ed., at 348. Neither usage seems analytically sound. The cases do not apply a "waiver" standard as that term was used in Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938), and we recently have made clear that an individual may lose the benefit of the privilege without making a knowing and intelligent waiver. See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 222-227, 235-240, 246-247, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 2045-2047, 2051-2054, 2057-2058, 36 L.Ed.2d 854, 859-862, 867-870, 873-874 (1973). Moreover, it seems desirable to reserve the term "waiver" in these cases for the process by which one affirmatively renounces the protection of the privilege, see, E. g., Smith v. United States, 337 U.S. 137, 150, 69 S.Ct. 1000, 1007, 93 L.Ed. 1264, 1273 (1949). The concept of "voluntariness" is related to the concept of "compulsion." But it may promote clarity to use the latter term in cases where disclosures are required in the face of a claim of privilege, while reserving "voluntariness" for the concerns discussed in Part IV, Infra, at 656-665, where we consider whether some factor prevents a taxpayer desiring to claim the privilege from doing so.
These arguments were in fact advanced in the dissent from the en banc decision below, which Garner adopted as his brief on the self-incrimination issue. Brief for Petitioner 8. Garner's brief itself principally advances two other claims of error. The facts underlying these claims were not presented in the petition for certiorari, see this Court's Rule 23(1)(e), which alone would have merited a denial of a petition not containing the self-incrimination claim. Rule 23(4). Further, these contentions were not deemed of sufficient merit to warrant discussion below. In these circumstances we consider it inappropriate to reach them.
As we have noted, the privilege is an exception to the general principle that the Government has the right to everyone's testimony. A corollary to that principle is that the claim of privilege ordinarily must be presented to a "tribunal" for evaluation at the time disclosures are initially sought. See Albertson v. SACB, 382 U.S. 70, 78-79, 86 S.Ct. 194, 198-199, 15 L.Ed.2d 165, (1965); United States ex rel. Vajtauer v. Commissioner of Immigration, 273 U.S., at 113, 47 S.Ct., at 306, 71 L.Ed., at 566; Mason v. United States, 244 U.S. 362, 364-365, 37 S.Ct. 621, 622, 61 L.Ed. 1198, 1199-1200 (1917). This early evaluation of claims allows the Government to compel evidence if the claim is invalid or if immunity is granted and therefore assures that the Government obtains all the information to which it is entitled. In the gambling tax cases, however, making a claim of privilege when the disclosures were requested, I. e., when the returns were due, would have identified the claimant as a gambler. The Court therefore forgave the usual requirement that the claim of privilege be presented for evaluation in favor of a "claim" by silence. See Marchetti, supra, 390 U.S., at 50, 88 S.Ct., at 703, 19 L.Ed.2d at 898. Nonetheless, it was recognized that one who "claimed" the privilege by refusing to file could be required subsequently to justify his claim of privilege. See Id., at 61, 88 S.Ct., at 709, 19 L.Ed.2d at 905. If a particular gambler would not have incriminated himself by filing the tax returns, the privilege would not justify a failure to file.
Mr. Justice BRENNAN, joined by Mr. Justice MARSHALL, concurred in the judgment on the ground that the compelled disclosure of the amount of Mackey's gambling income could be used in a prosecution for income tax evasion. See 401 U.S., at 702, 91 S.Ct., at 1185, 28 L.Ed.2d, at 426.
It does not follow necessarily that a taxpayer would be immunized against use of disclosures made on gambling tax returns when the Fifth Amendment would have justified a failure to file at all. If Marchetti and Grosso had been held retroactive, immunization might have been appropriate in Mackey's case. But at the time Mackey filed there was in fact no privilege not to file. Not only had Marchetti and Grosso not yet been decided, but United States v. Kahriger, 345 U.S. 22, 73 S.Ct. 510, 97 L.Ed. 754 (1953), and Lewis v. United States, 348 U.S. 419, 75 S.Ct. 415, 99 L.Ed. 475 (1955), previously had held that the privilege was not a defense to prosecution for failure to file the occupational tax returns. Mackey therefore was compelled to file his returns, thereby necessarily identifying himself as a gambler and thus risking self-incrimination. Accordingly, there were two related reasons to view the disclosures made in Mackey as compelled incriminations. The first was the inherently incriminating nature of the information demanded by the Government. See Supra, at 658. The second was the gambler's inability to claim the privilege by refusing to file at the time Mackey's disclosures were required. Cf. Mackey, supra, 401 U.S., at 704, 91 S.Ct., at 1165, 28 L.Ed.2d, at 427 (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment); Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 27-28, 89 S.Ct. 1532, 1543-1544, 23 L.Ed.2d 57, 76-77 (1969); Grosso, supra, 390 U.S., at 70-71, 88 S.Ct. at 714-715, 19 L.Ed.2d at 913-914. In the case of gambling tax returns filed after Marchetti and Grosso, the second factor would not be present.
Garner contends that whatever the case may be with regard to taxpayers in general, a gambler who might be incriminated by revealing his occupation cannot claim the privilege on the return effectively. This contention stems from the fact that certain specialized tax calculations are required only of gamblers. See § 165(d) of the Code, 26 U.S.C. § 165(d); Recent Cases, 86 Harv.L.Rev. 914, 916 n. 13 (1973). Garner argues that the process of claiming the privilege with respect to these calculations will reveal a gambler's occupation. We need not address this contention, since Garner found it unnecessary to make any such special calculations. 501 F.2d, at 237 n. 3.
Garner contends that California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424, 91 S.Ct. 1535, 29 L.Ed.2d 9 (1971), cast doubt on Sullivan's dictum. The Court held in Byers that the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination was not violated by a statute requiring motorists involved in automobile accidents to stop and identify themselves. Garner argues that Byers suggests that governments always can compel answers to neutral regulatory inquiries in a self-reporting scheme and that the protection of the Fifth Amendment should be afforded in such cases solely through use immunity.
Because § 7203 proscribes "willful" failures to make returns, a taxpayer is not at peril for every erroneous claim of privilege. The Government recognizes that a defendant could not properly be convicted for an erroneous claim of privilege asserted in good faith. This concession simply reflects our holding in Murdock II. There Murdock's claim of privilege was considered unjustified (because of the holding in Murdock I disapproved in Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n ). But the Court recognized that "good faith" in its assertion would entitle Murdock to acquittal.
"(T)he Government, . . . we think correctly, assumed that it carried the burden of showing more than a mere voluntary failure to supply information, with intent, in good faith, to exercise a privilege granted the witness by the Constitution." 290 U.S. at 397, 54 S.Ct., at 226, 78 L.Ed. at 386.
No language in this opinion is to be read as allowing a taxpayer desiring the protection of the privilege to make disclosures concurrently with a claim of privilege and thereby to immunize himself against the use of such disclosures. If a taxpayer desires the protection of the privilege, he must claim it instead of making disclosures. Any other rule would deprive the Government of its choice between compelling the evidence from the claimant in exchange for immunity and avoiding the burdens of immunization by obtaining the evidence elsewhere. See Mackey v. United States, 401 U.S., at 711-713, 91 S.Ct., at 1169-1171, 28 L.Ed.2d, at 431-433 (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment).
Indeed, as the Court notes, Ante, at 663, n. 18, the Court held that Murdock was entitled to acquittal if his assertion of the privilege was in good faith. United States v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389, 54 S.Ct. 223, 78 L.Ed. 381 (1933) (Murdock II ).