United States v. Norbert T. Kerwin

945 F.2d 92, 68 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5753, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 23066, 1991 WL 195810
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedOctober 4, 1991
Docket91-1017
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 945 F.2d 92 (United States v. Norbert T. Kerwin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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. Norbert T. Kerwin, 945 F.2d 92, 68 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5753, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 23066, 1991 WL 195810 (5th Cir. 1991).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Norbert Kerwin was convicted of three counts of willful failure to file an income tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203. On appeal, he argues that under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, he cannot be convicted, because that statute provides that “no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to ... provide information to any agency if the information collection request ... does not display a current control number assigned by the Director [of the Office of Management and Budget]”. 44 U.S.C. § 3512.

Kerwin asserts that the regulations and instructions concerning the filing of income tax returns do not contain such control numbers. This issue was considered in United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34, 38 (6th Cir.1990), which held that the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply to the statutory requirement that a taxpayer must file a return. Since Kerwin, like the taxpayer in Wunder, was convicted of that statute, which is not an information request, there is no violation of the Paperwork Reduction Act. For the reasons set forth in Wunder, we AFFIRM.

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

Related

United States v. Gross
626 F.3d 289 (Sixth Circuit, 2010)
Willis v. Commissioner
351 F. App'x 970 (Fifth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Rupe
308 F. App'x 777 (Fifth Circuit, 2009)
Willis v. Comm'r
2008 T.C. Memo. 233 (U.S. Tax Court, 2008)
United States v. Ferrand
284 F. App'x 177 (Fifth Circuit, 2008)
Green v. Comm'r
2007 T.C. Memo. 262 (U.S. Tax Court, 2007)
United States v. Ionia Management S.A.
498 F. Supp. 2d 477 (D. Connecticut, 2007)
Pate v. Comm'r
2007 T.C. Memo. 132 (U.S. Tax Court, 2007)
Stockton v. State Taxation & Revenue Department
2007 NMCA 071 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 2007)
United States v. Lawrence, Robert
217 F. App'x 553 (Seventh Circuit, 2007)
United States v. Kun Yun Jho
465 F. Supp. 2d 618 (E.D. Texas, 2006)
United States v. Ouwenga
173 F. App'x 411 (Sixth Circuit, 2006)
Andreas v. Commissioner
1993 T.C. Memo. 551 (U.S. Tax Court, 1993)
Freas v. Commissioner
1993 T.C. Memo. 552 (U.S. Tax Court, 1993)
Aldrich v. Commissioner
1993 T.C. Memo. 290 (U.S. Tax Court, 1993)
McCart v. Commissioner
1993 T.C. Memo. 96 (U.S. Tax Court, 1993)
Robert A. Salberg v. United States
969 F.2d 379 (Seventh Circuit, 1992)
United States v. Arthur H. Ryan, III
969 F.2d 238 (Seventh Circuit, 1992)
United States v. Howell C. Willis
958 F.2d 60 (Fifth Circuit, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
945 F.2d 92, 68 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5753, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 23066, 1991 WL 195810, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-norbert-t-kerwin-ca5-1991.