United States v. One Coin-Operated Gaming Device
This text of 648 F.2d 1297 (United States v. One Coin-Operated Gaming Device) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This is an appeal from judicial forfeiture proceedings under 26 U.S.C. § 7302 in which six coin-operated gaming devices and the coins in those machines were declared forfeited for failure to pay gaming machine tax imposed by 26 U.S.C. § 4461 (repealed 1980).1 The owner, William Estes, filed this appeal, claiming (1) application of the law violates his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination; (2) the government was estopped from seizing the machines because of actions of its agent; (3) the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) acceptance of late payment of the tax bars the forfeiture; (4) moneys contained in the machines were not subject to forfeiture; and (5) repeal of 26 U.S.C. § 4461 in 1980 requires us to set aside this conviction. We find it necessary to consider only the first of these claims.
Estes asserts his refusal to purchase the tax stamps required by section 4461 was protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. At trial, Estes testified that he bought stamps for his machines every year until the stamps were used as evidence against him in a 1974 federal trial for illegal gambling. After that trial, he stopped buying the stamps because he feared they could be used as evidence against him again.
Estes’ contentions concerning self-incrimination are based upon Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), and Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62, 88 S.Ct. 709, 19 L.Ed.2d 906 (1968). In those cases, the Supreme Court held that federal tax provisions 26 U.S.C. §§ 4411 and 4412, as they were then enforced, violated the defendants’ Fifth Amendment privilege by subjecting taxpayers to substantial hazards of self-incrimination.
“Petitioner was confronted by a comprehensive system of federal and state prohibitions against wagering activities; he was required, on pain of criminal prosecution, to provide information which he might reasonably suppose would be available to prosecuting authorities, and which [1299]*1299would surely prove a significant ‘link in a chain’ of evidence tending to establish his guilt.”
Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. at 48, 88 S.Ct. at 702 (footnotes omitted). The Marchetti-Grosso rationale is applicable to forfeiture proceedings when the statute imposing the forfeiture is “intended to impose a penalty only upon those who are significantly involved in a criminal enterprise.” United States v. United States Coin & Currency, 401 U.S. 715, 721-22, 91 S.Ct. 1041, 1044 — 45, 28 L.Ed.2d 434 (1971).
The government’s response is that 26 U.S.C. § 4424, passed after Marchetti and Grosso, cured the hazards of incrimination recognized in those cases.2 Estes asserts that section 4424 does not provide sufficient protection against disclosure of the incriminating evidence required to accompany payment of the occupational tax on form 11-B.
The problem here is that by its express terms 26 U.S.C. § 4424 applies only to wagering taxes under chapter 35 of Title 26.3 The instant seizure is for failure to pay the occupational tax on coin-operated gaming devices, a part of subchapter B of chapter 36, titled “Certain Other Excise Taxes.” See 26 U.S.C. §§ 4461-4463 (repealed 1980). Failure to make section 4424 applicable to the occupational tax on coin-operated devices very likely was an oversight by Congress. Other sections noted by the Supreme Court in Marchetti, Grosso, and other cases were amended in 1976 to eliminate objectionable features, in broad enough terms to encompass the tax on coin-operated gaming devices. Thus, 26 U.S.C. § 6107 which required disclosures to prosecuting authorities of names of persons who paid special taxes under subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code (including chapters 35 and 36) has been replaced by a tax return [1300]*1300preparer provision requiring no such disclosure. Section 6806, which previously required conspicuous posting of gaming tax stamps on or in the machine itself, now excepts from such posting all stamps acquired “under subchapter B of chapter 36,”4 the occupational tax on coin-operated gaming devices. While these amendments seem to remove some of the Supreme Court’s concerns, we believe the existing hazards of incrimination are, nevertheless, substantial. The IRS is no longer required to disclose the names of persons paying special taxes, and there is no indication in the record of this case that IRS officials are providing information derived from form 11-B to state or federal prosecutors; still, protection such as that afforded by section 4424 and absent here is necessary. See Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). 26 U.S.C. § 6103(i)(3) allows the IRS to disclose return information which may constitute evidence of a violation of federal criminal law. See also 26 U.S.C. § 6103(i)(l), (2). Moreover, such information may be introduced as evidence in administrative or judicial proceedings. 26 U.S.C. § 6103(i)(4). See Marchetti, 390 U.S. at 47-48, 88 S.Ct. at 702.
The trial judge in the instant case ruled the federal tax on these devices was not directed at a “small group of people whose activities were inherently suspect,” and, thus, the statute did not subject defendant to hazards of self-incrimination. See Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. at 47, 88 S.Ct. at 702; Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. at 64, 88 S.Ct. at 711; United States v. Reeves, 425 F.2d 1063,1065 (10th Cir. 1970). We disagree. The special tax is only upon “coin-operated gaming device[s],” defined as slot machines or their equivalents, “which by application of the element of chance, may deliver or entitle the person playing or operating the machines to receive cash, premiums, merchandise, or tokens.” 26 U.S.C.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
648 F.2d 1297, 48 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 81, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-one-coin-operated-gaming-device-ca10-1981.