United States v. Sullivan, 851
| Decision Date | 16 May 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 851,851 |
| Citation | 47 S.Ct. 607,71 L.Ed. 1037,274 U.S. 259 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. SULLIVAN |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The Attorney General and Mrs. Mabel Walker Willebrandt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from page 260 intentionally omitted] Mr. Frederick W. Aley, of Charleston, S. C., pro hac vice, for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from page 261 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
The defendant in error was convicted of willfully refusing to make a return of his net income as required by the Revenue Act of 1921, Act Nov. 23, 1921, c. 136, §§ 223(a), 253 (42 Stat. 227, 250, 268 (Comp. St. §§ 6336 1/8 kk, 6336 1/8 v)). The judgment was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. Sullivan v. United States, 15 F.(2d) 809. A writ of certiorari was granted by this Court.
We may take it that the defendant had sufficient gross income to require a return under the statute unless he was exonerated by the fact that the whole or a large part of it was derived from business in violation of the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. § 10138 1/4 et seq.). The Circuit Court of Appeals held that gains from illicit traffic in liquor were subject to the income tax, but that the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution protected the defendant from the requirement of a return.
The Court below was right in holding that the defendant's gains were subject to the tax. By section 213(a), being Comp. St. § 6336 1/8 ff, gross income includes 'gains, profits, and income derived from * * * the transaction of any business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever.' These words are also those of the earlier Act of October 3, 1913, c. 16, section II, B (38 Stat. 114, 167), except that the word 'lawful' is omitted before 'business' in the passage just quoted. By section 600 (42 Stat. 285 (Comp. St. § 5986e)), and by another Act approved on the same day Congress applied other tax laws to this forbidden traffic. Act Nov. 23, 1921, c. 134, § 5 (42 Stat. 222, 223 (Comp. St. §§ 10138 4/5 c-10138 1/5 e)). United States v. One Ford Coupe , 272 U. S. 321, 327, 47 S. Ct. 154, 47 A. L. R. 1025;1 United States v. Stafoff, 260 U. S. 477, 480, 43 S. Ct. 197, 67 L. Ed. 358. We see no reason to doubt the interpretation of the Act, or any reason why the fact that a business is unlawful should exempt it from paying the taxes that if lawful it would have to pay.
As the defendant's income was taxed, the statute of course required a return. See United States v. Sischo, 262 U. S. 165, 43 S. Ct. 511, 67 L. Ed. 925. In the decision that this was contrary to the Constitution we are of opinion that the protection of the Fifth Amendment was pressed too far. If the form of return provided called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making he could have raised the objection in the return, but could not on that account refuse to make any return at all. We are not called on to decide what, if anything, he might have withheld. Most of the items warranted no compaint. It would be an extreme if not an extravagant application of the Fifth Amendment to say that it authorized a man to refuse to state the amount of his income because it had been made in crime....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. General Motors Corporation
...regulatory schemes, see California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424, 91 S.Ct. 1535, 29 L.Ed.2d 9 (1971) and United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 47 S.Ct. 607, 71 L.Ed. 1037 (1927), and those cases which invalidate such requirements in criminal statutes aimed at selective groups inherently suspect......
-
Galvan v. Superior Court of City and County of San Francisco
...at the public at large' (Albertson v. SACB, 382 U.S. 70, 79, 86 S.Ct. 194, 199, 15 L.Ed.2d 165, construing United States v. Sullivan (1926) 274 U.S. 259, 47 S.Ct. 607, 71 L.Ed. 1037), the gun law would not be unconstitutional. At most--and we do not purport to rule on the issue--a person wh......
-
Hartman v. Switzer, Civ. A. No. 73-788.
...return, then his theory is an extreme application of the privilege and one which has been rejected since United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 47 S.Ct. 607, 71 L.Ed. 1037 (1927). There is no constitutional right to refuse to file an income tax return because of the Fifth Amendment. See C......
-
In re Fairbanks, Bankruptcy No. 89-10904.
...194, at 199 15 L.Ed.2d 165 (1965)) and required disclosure of no inherently illegal activity. See also United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 47 S.Ct. 607, 71 L.Ed. 1037 (1927) (rejecting Fifth Amendment objection to requirement to file income tax return). Justice Harlan, the author of Ma......
-
Tax Court In Brief | Fabian v. Comm'r | Fraudulent Returns, Constructive Receipt, And Guilty Plea | Don't Be Like Fabian
...the money was obtained unlawfully. See 26 U.S.C. ' 61(a)(2); James v. United States, 366 U.S. 213, 221 (1961); United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 263 (1927). Generally, the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that the corporation lacks sufficient earnings and profits to support divid......
-
Cannabis & the Mid-Terms: What Tax Policy?
...Telegram, #1453, March 20, 1931. [xxiv] IRC Sec. 161 and Sec. 162. [xxv] See Controlled Substances Act, P.L. 91-513, Sec. 202. [xxvi] 274 U.S. 259 (1927). [xxvii] For example, rent or compensation. [xxviii] For example, bribery, or an illegal kickback. In response to the defendant’s argumen......
-
Finally: Congress Passes 2022 Government Funding Legislation (Beltway Buzz, March 11, 2022)
...argued more than 40 cases before the Supreme Court of the United States, including a successful argument in United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259 (1927), which the Court ruled that earnings from illegal liquor sales were subject to income tax. The ruling formed the basis for the prosecuti......
-
Finally: Congress Passes 2022 Government Funding Legislation (Beltway Buzz, March 11, 2022)
...argued more than 40 cases before the Supreme Court of the United States, including a successful argument in United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259 (1927), which the Court ruled that earnings from illegal liquor sales were subject to income tax. The ruling formed the basis for the prosecuti......
-
Tax violations.
...Fifth Amendment claim improper because he feared incrimination of family but not of himself). (173.) See United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 263 (1927) (holding Fifth Amendment privilege not proper defense for failure to file); United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34, 35 (6th Cir. 1990) (......
-
Tax violations.
...Fifth Amendment claim was improper because he feared incrimination of family but not of himself). (172.) See United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 263 (1927) (holding Fifth Amendment privilege not proper defense for failure to file); United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34, 35 (6th Cir. 199......
-
Tax violations.
...Fifth Amendment claim was improper because he feared incrimination of family but not of himself). (173.) See United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 263 (1927) (holding Fifth Amendment privilege not proper defense for failure to file); United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34, 35 (6th Cir. 199......
-
Trials
...calendars and diaries of some federal officials because “no obligation to create the documents in the first place”); U.S. v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 263-64 (1927) (5th Amendment does not protect individuals against incriminating information in forced filing of tax return because individu......