Shea v. U.S., 74-2115

Decision Date26 November 1974
Docket NumberNo. 74-2115,74-2115
Parties74-2 USTC P 9838 James M. SHEA, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Richard E. Crouch (Philip J. Hirschkop, Alexandria, Va., on brief), for appellant.

Mark S. Geraghty, Arlington, Va., Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty. (David H. Hopkins, U.S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.

Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief judge, and WINTER the BUTZNER, Circuit judges.

PER CURIAM:

James Shea was convicted of willfully supplying his employer with false or fraudulent information about his income tax withholding, in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7205 (1970). This court affirmed his conviction. Shea v. United States, No. 15,313 (4th Cir. April 6, 1971).

Shea's conviction arose from his attempt to protest the Government's policies in Viet Nam. On February 20, 1970 Shea filed a W-4 Form with his employer showing that he had 20 dependents, a substantial increase from his previous claim of six dependents. In response to his employer's query about the change, Shea wrote: 'I changed my number of dependents as indicated on the enclosed W-4 Form after considering carefully the Internal Revenue's regulations, statutes covering income tax, and the advice of my lawyer. My explanation of the change is that the number of my dependents has increased.' Earlier, on January 23, 1970, when filing an income tax return, Shea had enclosed a letter protesting government policies. In that letter he proclaimed a general intent to seek ways to resist the payment of taxes. He did not, however, repeat his protest in a letter attached to the W-4 Form or refer to it in any way when asked for an explanation of the increase in the number of his dependents.

After the decision in United States v. Snider, 502 F.2d 645 (4th Cir. 1974), Shea filed a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255, which the district court denied. Like Shea, Snider was convicted of violating 7205 for making an inaccurate statement on his withholding form. Snider had filed a W-4 Form, claiming three billion dependents, which represented all the human beings in the world, as he explained in a cover letter. Reversing the conviction, this court held that the information was not '(1) supplied with an intent to deceive, or (2) false in the sense of deceptive-- of such a nature that it would reasonably affect withholding to the detriment of the government.' 502 F.2d at 655. Since the claim of three billion dependents...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  •  Habersham-Bey v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • March 2, 1982
    ...assertion of 13 exemptions would not serve to give respondent notice as to petitioner's alleged tax-exempt status. Shea v. United States, 506 F.2d 1226 (4th Cir. 1974); Malinowski v. United States, 472 F.2d 850 (3d Cir. 1973). At the time petitioner submitted the Form W-4 to her employer, p......
  • U.S. v. Hinderman, s. 75--1394
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • January 5, 1976
    ...on the basis of family members and the amount of itemized deductions allowed by the statute. 26 U.S.C. § 3402. See Shea v. United States, 506 F.2d 1226 (4th Cir. 1974). Appellants, however, persist in their claim that judgments of actuittal should have been entered because intentional decep......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT