Cave v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

58 federal appellate · 2 district ·

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"It is apparent that the Spies case does not support appellant's theory. The indictment in this case after the withdrawal of paragraph (2) of each count from the consideration of the jury did not attempt to charge a felony under § 145(b) by failure to file a return or pay a tax or by the omission or commission of any other dereliction defined as a misdemeanor in § 145(a). It charged an attempt to defeat and evade the tax by the positive act of willfully filing a false and fraudulent return—not a mere failure to file any return. The indictment charged that for the year 1943 appellant filed a return showing an income of $8,455 and a tax due of $1,933.58, whereas he received an income in that year of $55,256.60 on which a tax in the amount of $30,843.69 should have been paid; and for the year 1944 he disclosed an income of only $788.04 and a tax of $8.64, whereas his income was $69,959.62 on which a tax in the sum of $43,392.22 should have been paid. "The distinction between the offenses defined in § 145(a) and § 145 (b) is too clear to permit confusion. Section 145(a) denounces as a misdemeanor (1) willful failure to pay a tax; (2) willful failure to make a return; (3) willful failure to keep records; or (4) willful failure to supply information. Section 145(b), on the other hand, denounces as a felony a willful attempt `in any manner' to evade or defeat any tax. As said by the Supreme Court in the Spies case, supra, `Congress did not define or limit the methods by which a will”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Florida · 165 F. Supp. 328 - United States v. Florida

2. ““ * * * Willful but passive neglect of the statutory duty may con stitute the lesser offense, but to combine with it a willful and positive attempt to evade tax in any manner or to defeat it by any means lifts the offense to the degree of felony. “Congress did not define or limit the methods by which a willful attempt to defeat and evade might be accomplished and perhaps did not define lest its effort to do so result in some unexpected limitation. Nor would we by definition constrict the scope of the Congressional provision that it may be accomplished ‘in any manner’. By way of illustration, and not by way of limitation, we would think affirmative willful attempt may be inferred from conduct such as keeping a double set of books, making false entries or alterations, or false invoices or documents, destruction of books or records, concealment of assets or covering up sources of income, handling of one’s affairs to avoid making the records usual in transactions of the kind, and any conduct, the likely effect of which would be to mislead or to conceal. * * * ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Canton v. United States · United States v. Schwartz

3. “’’The argument is fallacious. A taxpayer whose -returns are made on the basis of the calendar year may file his return with the collector ’on or before the 15th day of March following the close of the calendar year,’ § 53(a) (1) Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code, § 53(a) (1); and the tax ‘shall be paid on the fifteenth day of March following the close of the calendar year,’ § 56(a); and it ’may be paid * * * prior to the date prescribed for its payment/ § 56(d). The crime denounced by § 145'(b) of willfully attempting to defeat or evade the tax is complete when the taxpayer willfully and knovoingly files a false and fraudulent return with intent to defeat or evade any part of the tax due the United States. Guzik v. United States, 7 Cir., 54 F.2d 618, 619 , certiorari denied 285 U.S. 545 , 52 S.Ct. 395 , 76 L.Ed. 937 ; Bowles v. United States, 4 Cir., 73 F.2d 772, 774 .” (Emphasis added.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Canton v. United States · 104 F. Supp. 223 - United States v. Ehrlich