UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
LAWRENCE A. FRANK AND VERONICA B. FRANK, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
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 element of willfulness in tax evasion can be inferred from a consistent pattern of omissions from records and returns.
Appellants were convicted of willful tax evasion for omitting substantial income from records provided to their attorney for tax return preparation. S…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse 26 U.S.C. § 7201 Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Appellants, husband and wife, were convicted of violating 26 U.S.C. § 7201 (willful tax evasion). They attack the sufficiency of the evidence presented below on the issue of the willfulness.
During the years 1964 through 1966, appellants supplied the attorney who prepared their returns with records that omitted substantial items of income. In their return for 1963 (not a subject of the indictment) there exist similar omissions. The inference drawn from these actions constituted the principal evidence of willfulness.
Appellants cite Spies v. United States (1943) 317 U.S. 492, 63 S.Ct. 364, 87 L.Ed. 418, for the proposition that the element of willfulness can never be inferred from the omissions in the returns themselves. They are in error. Spies holds only that willfulness is a separate element of the offense of tax evasion and cannot be inferred solely from omissions in a single return. But when the Court had before it a consistent pattern of underreporting and omissions from records, it had no trouble sustaining a jury’s finding of willfulness. (Holland v. United States (1954) 348 U.S. 121, 139, 75 S.Ct. 127, 99 L.Ed. 150.) For the same reason we have no difficulty here. (See also Escobar v. United States (5th Cir.) 388 F. 2d 661, cert. denied (1967) 390 U.S. 1024, 88 S.Ct. 1141, 20 L.Ed.2d 282.)
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Rosenthal, 470 F.2d 837 (2d Cir. 1972)
-
United States v. Ballard Daniels, 617 F.2d 146 (5th Cir. 1980)
-
United States v. Lattus, 512 F.2d 352 (6th Cir. 1975)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Holland et ux. v. United States, 348 U.S. 121 (U.S. 1954)
- Spies v. United States, 317 U.S. 492 (U.S. 1943)
- Escobar v. United States, 388 F.2d 661 (5th Cir. 1967)
- Samuels v. California, 390 U.S. 1024 (U.S. 1968)
- Tucky v. Castle, 390 U.S. 1024 (U.S. 1968)