U.S. v. Ward
| Decision Date | 16 December 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-3271,87-3271 |
| Citation | 833 F.2d 1538 |
| Parties | -357, 88-1 USTC P 9177 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arthur D. WARD, Defendant-Appellant. Non-Argument Calendar. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Lowell H. Becraft, Jr., Huntsville, Ala., for defendant-appellant.
Robert W. Merkle, U.S. Atty., Bruce Hinshelwood, Asst. U.S. Atty., Orlando, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Before HILL, FAY and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
Arthur D. Ward was convicted of three counts of tax evasion (26 U.S.C. Sec. 7201), and two counts of making false statements or claims to a federal agency. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001. Ward makes three arguments on this appeal. First, he suggests that the United States has jurisdiction over only Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves within the states, and the territories and possessions of the United States. Secondly, he interprets the term "individual" within the Internal Revenue Code to apply only to those individuals located within this jurisdiction of the United States. Ward reaches this twisted conclusion by misinterpreting a portion of the Income Tax Code. The 1913 Act defined the words "state" or "United States" to "include" United States territories and the District of Columbia; Ward asks this court to interpret the word "include" as a term of limitation, rather than of definition. Finally, Ward maintains that the only persons expressly and statutorily liable for income tax are the withholding agents of nonresident aliens and foreign corporations.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People of Cal. ex rel. Ervin v. District Director
...not engage in any activity that generates taxable income. See e.g. In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547, 548 (9th Cir.1989); United States v. Ward, 833 F.2d 1538, 1539 (11th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1022, 108 S.Ct. 1576, 99 L.Ed.2d 891 (1988); Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517, 519 (7th......
-
U.S. v. Kahn
...due consideration, the Defendants' motions (Docs. 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 45 & 55) are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 1. United States v. Ward, 833 F.2d 1538, 1539 (11th Cir.1987); In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547, 549 n. 2 (9th Cir.1989); United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th 2. Downes v......
-
U.S. v. Bell
..."by interpreting the term `include' [as used in the tax code] as a term of limitation rather than of definition", United States v. Ward, 833 F.2d 1538, 1539 (11th Cir.1987) "This claim ... has no semblance of merit." In re Becraft (United States v. Nelson), 885 F.2d 547, 549 n. 2 (9th.Cir.1......
-
U.S. v. Cowan, Civ. No. 06-00330 HG BMK.
...has no semblance of merit. United States v. Nelson (In re Becraft), 885 F.2d 547, 548 n. 2 (9th Cir.1989). See also United States v. Ward, 833 F.2d 1538, 1539 (11th Cir.1987)(the Eleventh Circuit summarily rejects the identical argument about the limitations of federal jurisdiction), cert. ......