UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
NICHOLAS CONFORTI ET AL. DOMENICK PASQUALE, SR., APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for wagering tax violations and that the penalty provisions applied.
Appellant was convicted by a jury for failing to pay a special occupational wagering tax and willfully failing to register information. He appealed, a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
PER CURIAM.
Domenick Pasquale, Sr., appellant herein, was tried in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on an information charging him: (1) With a violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7622, failure to pay a special occupational wagering tax imposed by 26 U.S.C. § 4411 upon persons engaged in the business of “accepting” wagers; (2) with willful failure to pay such tax in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203; and (3) with another violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203, willfully failing to register certain information with the District Director of Internal Revenue as required by 26 U.S.C. § 4412. A jury convicted him on all three counts.
In this appeal he contends (1) that the evidence introduced at his trial did not support either the information or the conviction that he was an “acceptor” of wagers; (2) that 26 U.S.C. § 7203 applies neither to violations of 26 U.S.C. § 4411, nor 26 U.S.C. § 4412; and (3) that there was insufficient evidence of willfulness.
We' have found that the evidence before the District Court was sufficient to sustain the information and to warrant the jury’s verdict, both as to appellant being an “acceptor” of wagers and his acting in a willful manner. Nor are we persuaded by appellant’s argument that the penalty provisions of 26 U.S.C. § 7203 should not apply to violations of 26 U.S.C. §§ 4411 and 4412. See United States v. Goldman, 352 F. 2d 263, 265 (3 Cir. 1965); United States v. Shaffer, 291 F. 2d 689 (7 Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 915, 82 S.Ct. 192, 7 L.Ed.2d 130 (1961), rehearing denied, 368 U.S. 962, 82 S.Ct. 392, 7 L.Ed.2d 393 (1962); Contreras v. United States, 213 F. 2d 96 (5 Cir. 1954); United States v. Sams, 219 F.Supp. 164 (W.D.Pa.1963), aff’d 340 F. 2d 1014 (3 Cir.), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 974, 85 S.Ct. 1336, 14 L.Ed.2d 270 (1965).
The judgment of conviction and sentence of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey will be affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Shaffer, 291 F.2d 689 (7th Cir. 1961)
- Contreras v. United States, 213 F.2d 96 (5th Cir. 1954)
- United States v. Sams, 340 F.2d 1014 (3d Cir. 1965)
- United States v. Goldman, 352 F.2d 263 (3d Cir. 1965)
- Shell Oil Co. v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 368 U.S. 915 (U.S. 1961)
- Bell v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 368 U.S. 915 (U.S. 1961)
- Gulfport Shipbuilding Corp. v. Vallot, 380 U.S. 974 (U.S. 1965)
- Sams v. United States, 380 U.S. 974 (U.S. 1965)
- Baumgart v. Martin, 368 U.S. 962 (U.S. 1962)
- Treat v. Sachs, 368 U.S. 962 (U.S. 1962)