Michael H. Boulware v. United States (552 U.S. 421)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided March 3, 2008 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 552 U.S. 421 · 128 S. Ct. 1168
- Decided
- March 3, 2008
- Term
- October Term 2007
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Souter
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court. Sections 301 and 316(a) of the Internal Revenue Code set the conditions for treating certain corporate distributions as returns of capital, nontaxable to the recipient. 26 U. S. C. §§ 301, 316(a) (2000 ed. and Supp. V). The question here is whether a distributee accused of criminal tax evasion may-claim return-of-capital treatment without producing evidence that either he or the corporation intended a capital return when the distribution occurred. We hold that no such showing is required. I “[T]he capstone of [the] system of sanctions ... calculated to induce ... fulfillment of every duty under the income tax law,” Spies v. United States, 317 U. S. 492, 497 (1943), is 26 U. S. C. § 7201, making it a felony willfully to “attemp[t] in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by” the Code. One element of tax evasion under § 7201 is “the existence of a tax deficiency,” Sansone v. United States, 380 U. S. 343, 351 (1965); see also Lawn v. United States, 355 U. S. 339, 361 (1958), which the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, see ibid. (“[0]f course, a conviction upon a charge of attempting to evade assessment of income taxes by the filing of a-fraudulent return cannot stand in the absence of proof of a deficiency”). Any deficiency determination in this case will turn on §§ 301 and 316(a) of the Code. According to…
Excerpt of a 34,453-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.