NCJ Number
26441
Journal
American Criminal Law Review Volume: 12 Issue: 2 Dated: (FALL 1974) Pages: 381-400
Date Published
1974
Length
20 pages
Annotation
AN EXAMINATION OF THE FEDERAL CASE LAW WHICH HAS GIVEN RISE TO CONFUSION CONCERNING THE MEANING OF 'WILLFULNESS' IN TAX EVASION, WITH A DISCUSSION OF THE 1973 SUPREME COURT DECISION WHICH ATTEMPTED TO CLARIFY THIS ISSUE.
Abstract
THE FEDERAL TAX MISDEMEANOR AND FELONY STATUTES EMPLOY THE WORD 'WILLFULLY' AS THE ELEMENT OF INTENT REQUIRED FOR CONVICTION. FOR MANY YEARS, THE COURTS HAVE HAD CONSIDERABLE DIFFICULTY IN DEFINING THIS TERM. FOUR COURT CASES IN WHICH AN ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO DEFINE 'WILLFULLY' ARE EXPLORED. THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED IN UNITED STATES V BISHOP (1973) THAT 'WILLFULLY' DOES IN FACT REQUIRE THE SAME HIGH DEGREE OF MENS REA IN BOTH FELONY AND MISDEMEANOR TAX CASES. THIS DECISION ALSO EFFECTIVELY PRECLUDED A DEFENDANT FROM BEING PERMITTED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON A LESSER-INCLUDED-TAX-OFFENSE WHERE WILLFULNESS IF THE ONLY DISPUTED ELEMENT OF THE CRIME CHARGED. THE PROPOSED FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE DEALING WITH TAX CRIMES ARE BRIEFLY DISCUSSED. THIS RECODIFICATION WOULD REPLACE 'WILLFULLY' WITH TWO NEW CULPABILITY STANDARDS, 'INTENT TO EVADE' AND 'KNOWLINGLY.' (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)