United States v. Lawrence A. Frank and Veronica B. Frank

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Lawrence A. Frank and Veronica B. Frank

437 F.2d 452

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 2, 1971

Docket26600

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 437 F.2d 452 (United States v. Lawrence A. Frank and Veronica B. Frank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Lawrence A. Frank and Veronica B. Frank, 437 F.2d 452 (9th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellants, husband and wife, were convicted of violating 26 U.S.C. § 7201 (willful tax evasion). They attack the sufficiency of the evidence presented below on the issue of the willfulness.

During the years 1964 through 1966, appellants supplied the attorney who prepared their returns with records that omitted substantial items of income. In their return for 1963 (not a subject of the indictment) there exist similar omissions. The inference drawn from these actions constituted the principal evidence of willfulness.

Appellants cite Spies v. United States (1943) 317 U.S. 492, 63 S.Ct. 364, 87 L.Ed. 418, for the proposition that the element of willfulness can never be inferred from the omissions in the returns themselves. They are in error. Spies holds only that willfulness is a separate element of the offense of tax evasion and cannot be inferred solely from omissions in a single return. But when the Court had before it a consistent pattern of underreporting and omissions from records, it had no trouble sustaining a jury’s finding of willfulness. (Holland v. United States (1954) 348 U.S. 121, 139, 75 S.Ct. 127, 99 L.Ed. 150.) For the same reason we have no difficulty here. (See also Escobar v. United States (5th Cir.) 388 F.2d 661, cert. denied (1967) 390 U.S. 1024, 88 S.Ct. 1141, 20 L.Ed.2d 282.)

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Appellants, husband and wife, were convicted of violating 26 U.S.C. § 7201 (willful tax evasion). They attack the sufficiency of the evidence presented below on the issue of the willfulness.

During the years 1964 through 1966, appellants supplied the attorney who prepared their returns with records that omitted substantial items of income. In their return for 1963 (not a subject of the indictment) there exist similar omissions. The inference drawn from these actions constituted the principal evidence of willfulness.

Appellants cite Spies v. United States (1943) 317 U.S. 492, 63 S.Ct. 364, 87 L.Ed. 418, for the proposition that the element of willfulness can never be inferred from the omissions in the returns themselves. They are in error. Spies holds only that willfulness is a separate element of the offense of tax evasion and cannot be inferred solely from omissions in a single return. But when the Court had before it a consistent pattern of underreporting and omissions from records, it had no trouble sustaining a jury’s finding of willfulness. (Holland v. United States (1954) 348 U.S. 121, 139, 75 S.Ct. 127, 99 L.Ed. 150.) For the same reason we have no difficulty here. (See also Escobar v. United States (5th Cir.) 388 F.2d 661, cert. denied (1967) 390 U.S. 1024, 88 S.Ct. 1141, 20 L.Ed.2d 282.)

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

437 F.2d 452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-lawrence-a-frank-and-veronica-b-frank-ca9-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack