UNITED STATES
v.
MASSEI
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 Supreme Court clarified that in tax evasion prosecutions using the net worth method, proof of a likely source of unreported income is not always indispensable—it is only required when the government fails to eliminate all possible nontaxable sources of the income increase, but becomes unnecessary if all such sources are negated. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' remand for a new trial while correcting the lower court's misunderstanding of precedent established in Holland v. United States.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
The Court of Appeals has based its remand in part on the absence of “proof of likely source,” which it regards as an “indispensable” element of the net worth method, citing Holland v. United States, 348 U. S. 121, in support of its conclusion. In Holland we held that proof of a likely source was “sufficient” to convict in a net worth case where the Government did not negative all the possible nontaxable sources of the alleged net worth increase. This was not intended to imply that proof of a likely source was necessary in every case. On the contrary, should all possible sources of nontaxable income be negatived, there would be no necessity for proof of a likely source. The above explanation must be taken into consideration in applying the Holland doctrine to this case. A new trial being permissible under the terms of the order of the Court of Appeals, we affirm its judgment.
Mr. Justice Douglas would affirm the judgment below on the opinion of the Court of Appeals, 241 F. 2d 895, 900-901.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (47 total)
-
United States v. Barrett, 539 F.2d 244 (1st Cir. 1976)…l involvements may not be shown for the purpose of demonstrating that the accused had a “propensity to commit crime”, Fish v. United States, 215 F. 544, 551 (1st Cir. 1914); accord, Massei v. United States, 241 F. 2d 895, 902 (1st Cir. 1957), aff’d, 355 U.S. 595, 78 S.Ct. 495, 2 L.Ed.2d 517 (1958); Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). However, if such evidence is relevant to another, legitimate purpose it may be admitted if its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of…
-
United States v. Newman, 468 F.2d 791 (5th Cir. 1972)…en period as proof of income during that period. The legality, to say nothing of the necessity, of these modes or proof is well established. See Holland v. United States, 1950, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S.Ct. 127, 99 L.Ed. 150; United States v. Massei, 1958, 355 U.S. 595, 78 S.Ct. 495, 2 L.Ed.2d 517. The government, in convincing the jury that defendant must have had taxable income during the years in question, presented evidence of the following at trial. The defendant, while filing no tax returns for the years 19…
-
United States v. Sclafani, 265 F.2d 408 (2d Cir. 1959)…ed that he had no. other source of non-taxable income, and the government’s prolonged investigation, though it revealed assets concealed by the taxpayer, did not disclose any other reasonably likely non-taxable source. United States v. Massei, 1958, 355 U.S. 595, 78 S.Ct. 495, 2 L.Ed.2d 517, holds that as an alternative to proof of a “likely source” for the proved increases in a net worth case the government would succeed “should all possible sources of nontaxable income be negatived * * * ” [*414] II — Sea…
Previewing 3 of 47 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)
- William v. Massei, 241 F.2d 895 (1st Cir. 1957)