United States v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis
545 F.2d 1204 · 1976
Citation profile
82 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 106 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2016 · most notably United States v. Computer Sciences Corp. (1982), United States v. Marashi (1990)
82 federal appellate · 4 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 287 · 26 U.S.C. § 1201 · 26 U.S.C. § 301 · 26 U.S.C. § 316 · 26 U.S.C. § 61 (Payment-in-Kind Tax Treatment Act of 1983) · 26 U.S.C. § 7201 · 26 U.S.C. § 7206
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Holland v. United States · Pereira v. United States · Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · Spies v. United States
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 106 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n a criminal tax proceeding the concern is not over the type or the specific amount of the tax which the defendant has evaded, but whether he has willfully attempted to evade the payment or assessment of a tax.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“In holding that the constructive distribution rules should not automatically be applied, it is not herein asserted that diverted funds could never be a return of capital. However, to constitute the latter, there must be some demonstration on the part of the taxpayer and/or the corporation that such distributions were intended to be such a return. To hold otherwise would be to permit the taxpayer to divert such funds and if not caught, to later pay out another return of capital; or if caught, to avoid conviction by raising the defense that the sums were a return of capital and hence nontaxable.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“At the time the funds are initially diverted it might well be argued that they could constitute either income or a return of capital. However once the taxpayer has assumed control of the funds and then fails to report such funds as income or to make any adjustments in the corporate books to reflect a return of capital, he has already violated the tax evasion statutes.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.