UNITED STATES

v.

SULLIVAN

U.S. | 1927-05-16

No. 851

274 U.S. 259 Supreme Court of the United States (1927) Negative Treatment

Also reported at: 71 L. Ed. 1037 · 47 S. Ct. 607 · 1927 U.S. LEXIS 25 · SCDB 1926-066

Cited by 605 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Supreme Court held that income derived from illegal activities, such as bootlegging under the National Prohibition Act, is subject to federal income tax and must be reported on a tax return. The Court rejected the taxpayer's Fifth Amendment argument that requiring him to file a return would force self-incrimination, ruling that while he could potentially raise specific objections about individual items within a return, he could not refuse to file a return altogether based on a blanket claim of constitutional protection.

Opinion of the Court

Me. Justice Holmes

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the Court.

The defendant in error was convicted of wilfully refusing to make a return of his net income as required by the Revenue Act of 1921; November 23, 1921, c. 136, §§ 223. (a), 253; 42 Stat. 227, 250, 268. The judgment was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 15 F.(2d) 809. A writ of certiorari was granted by this Court.

We may take it that the defendant had sufficient gross income to require a return under the statute unless he was exonerated by the fact that the whole or a large part of it was derived from business in violation of the National Prohibition Act. The Circuit Court of Appeals held that gains from illicit traffic in liquor were subject to the income tax, but that the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution protected the defendant from the requirement of a return.

The Court below was right in holding that the defendant’s gains were subject to the tax. By § 213 (a) gross income includes “ gains, profits, and income derived from . . . the transaction of any business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever.” These words are also those of the earlier Act of October 3, 1913, c. 16, § II, B; 38 Stat. 114, 167, except that the word ‘ lawful ’ is omitted before ‘business’, in the passage just quoted. By § 600; 42 Stat. 285, and by another Act approved on the same day Congress applied other tax laws to this forbidden traffic. Act of November 23, 1921, c. 134, § 5; 42 Stat. 222, 223. United States v. One Ford Coupé, 272 U. S. 321, 327. United States v. Stafoff, 260 U. S. 477, 480. We see no reason to doubt the interpretation of the Act, or any reason why the fact that a business is unlawful should exempt it from paying the taxes that if lawful it would have to pay.

As the defendant’s income was taxed, the statute of course required a return. See United States v. Sischo, 262 U. S.

165. In the decision that this was contrary to the Constitution we are of opinion that the protection of the Fifth Amendment was pressed too far. If the form of return provided called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making he could have Raised the objection in the return, but could not on that account refuse to make any return at all. We are not called on to decide what, if anything, he might have withheld. Most of the items warranted no complaint. 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. He could not draw a conjurer’s circle around the whole matter by his own declaration that to write any word upon the government blank would bring him into danger of the law. Mason v. United States, 244 U. S.

362. United States ex rel. Vajtauer v. Commissioner of Immigration, 273 U. S.

103. Tn this case the defendant did not even make a declaration, he simply abstained from making a return. See further the decision of the Pñvy Council, Minister of Finance v. Smith, A. C. 193.

It is urged that if a return were made the defendant would be entitled to deduct illegal expenses such as bribery. This by no means follows, but it will be time enough to consider the question when a taxpayer has the temerity to raise it.

Judgment reversed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (151 total)

ST. George v. State, 564 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)

…o. 2d 762 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969) (lineups). Although not within a custodial or testimonial context, the United States Supreme Court has upheld compelled self-identification within the context of certain regulatory schemes. In United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 47 S.Ct. 607, 71 L.Ed. 1037 (1927), a bootlegger was prosecuted for failure to file an income tax return, but claimed that the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination afforded him a complete defense because filing a return would have tended…
Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1968)

…easonably suppose would be available to prosecuting authorities, and which would surely prove a significant “link in a chain”9 of evidence tending to establish his guilt.10 Unlike the income tax return [*49] in question in United States v. Sullivan, 274 U. S. 259, every portion of these requirements had the direct and unmistakable consequence of incriminating petitioner; the application of the constitutional privilege to the entire registration procedure was in this instance neither “extreme” nor “extravagan…
Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62 (U.S. 1968)

…Mr. Justice Brennan, concurring.* I join the opinions of the Court in these cases. I write only to emphasize why, in my view, nothing we decide or say today in any wise impairs or modifies United States v. Sullivan, 274 U. S. 259, and Shapiro v. United States, 335 U. S. 1. The privilege against self-incrimination does not bar the Government from establishing every program or scheme featured by provisions designed to secure information from citizens to accomplish proper legi…

Previewing 3 of 151 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (16 total)

Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (U.S. 1886)
Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (U.S. 1906)
Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 361 (U.S. 1911)
Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547 (U.S. 1892)
Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1896)
United States v. One Ford Coupe Automobile, 272 U.S. 321 (U.S. 1926)
United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U.S. 81 (U.S. 1921)
United States ex rel. Vajtauer v. Commissioner of Immigration, 273 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1927)
United States v. Stafoff, 260 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1923)
Mason v. United States, 244 U.S. 362 (U.S. 1917)

View all 16 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw