United States v. Pomponio, No. 75-1667

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation429 U.S. 10,50 L.Ed.2d 12,97 S.Ct. 22
Docket NumberNo. 75-1667
Decision Date12 October 1976
PartiesUNITED STATES v. Peter POMPONIO et al

50 L.Ed.2d 12
97 S.Ct. 22
429 U.S. 10
UNITED STATES

v.

Peter POMPONIO et al.

No. 75-1667.
Oct. 12, 1976.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 29, 1976. See 429 U.S. 987, 97 S.Ct. 510.

PER CURIAM.

After a jury trial, respondents were convicted of willfully filing false income tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1).1 Based on its reading of United States v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346, 93 S.Ct. 2008, 36 L.Ed.2d 941 (1973), the Court of Appeals held that the jury was incorrectly instructed concerning willfulness, and remanded for a new trial. 528 F.2d 247 (1975). The United States petitioned for certiorari. We reverse.

The respondents were charged with falsifying tax returns in two principal ways: (1) they allegedly caused corporations they controlled to report payments to them as loans, when they knew the payments were really taxable dividends; and (2) they allegedly claimed partnership losses as deductions knowing that the losses were properly attributable to

Page 11

a corporation. Their defense was that these transactions were correctly reported, or at least that they thought so at the time.

The jury was instructed that respondents were not guilty of violating § 7206(1) unless they had signed the tax returns knowing them to be false,2 and had done so willfully. A willful act was defined in the instructions as one done "voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do something which the law forbids, that is to say with (the) bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law." Finally, the jury was instructed that "(g)ood motive alone is never a defense where the act done or omitted is a crime," and that consequently motive was irrelevant except as it bore on intent. The Court of Appeals held this final instruction improper because "the statute at hand requires a finding of a bad purpose or evil motive." 528 F.2d, at 249. In so holding, the Court of Appeals incorrectly assumed that the reference to an "evil motive" in United States v. Bishop, supra, and prior cases meant something more than the specific intent to violate the law described in the trial judge's instruction.

Page 12

In Bishop we held that the term "willfully" has the same meaning in the misdemeanor and felony sections of the Revenue Code, and that it requires more than a showing of careless disregard for the truth.3 We did not, however, hold that the term requires proof of any motive other than an intentional violation of a known legal duty. We explained the meaning of willfulness in § 7206 and related statutes:

"The Court, in fact, has recognized that the word 'willfully' in these statutes generally connotes a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty. It has formulated the requirement of willfulness as 'bad faith or evil intent,' (United States v.) Murdock, 290 U.S. (389,) 398, 54 S.Ct. (223), at 226 (78 L.Ed. 381), or 'evil motive and want of justification in view of all the financial circumstances of the taxpayer,' Spies (v. United States ), 317 U.S. (492,) 498, 63 S.Ct. (364), at 368 (87 L.Ed. 418), or knowledge that the taxpayer 'should have reported more income than he did.' Sansone (v. United States ), 380 U.S. (343,) 353, 85 S.Ct. (1004) at 1011 (13 L.Ed.2d 882). See James v. United States, 366 U.S. 213, 221, 81 S.Ct. 1052, 6 L.Ed.2d 246 (1961); McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 471, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969)." 412...

To continue reading

Request your trial
327 practice notes
  • United States v. Williamson, No. CR 11-2784 JB
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • March 20, 2013
    ...require proof of willfulness. There is no single, universal definition of the word "willfully." See, e.g., United States v. Pomponio, 429 U.S. 10, 12 . . . (1976); United States v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389, 394 . . . (1933), overruled in part by Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harb......
  • People v. Smith
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • May 17, 1984
    ...violated a known legal duty (Bishop, supra, 412 U.S. 346, 360, 93 S.Ct. 2008, 2017, 36 L.Ed.2d 941; United States v. Pomponio (1976) 429 U.S. 10, 12, 97 S.Ct. 22, 23, 50 L.Ed.2d 12, rehg. den. 429 U.S. 987, 97 S.Ct. 510, 50 L.Ed.2d 600). Under this interpretation, the mental component of wi......
  • State v. Courtney, No. 160PA18
    • United States
    • North Carolina United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • August 16, 2019
    ...that "in such cases a trial following the Government's successful appeal of a dismissal is not barred by double jeopardy," id. at 16, 97 S. Ct. at 22, 50 L. Ed. 2d at 20.Though the State is correct that Sanford includes language analogizing the dismissal in that case to the pretrial dismiss......
  • U.S. v. Busic, Nos. 383
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • October 30, 1978
    ...need to prove a "special" intent arises only by operation of law when something more is required. See e. g., United States v. Pomponio, 429 U.S. 10, 97 S.Ct. 22, 50 L.Ed.2d 12 (1976) (per curiam) (wilfully falsifying tax returns requires a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
319 cases
  • United States v. Williamson, No. CR 11-2784 JB
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • March 20, 2013
    ...require proof of willfulness. There is no single, universal definition of the word "willfully." See, e.g., United States v. Pomponio, 429 U.S. 10, 12 . . . (1976); United States v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389, 394 . . . (1933), overruled in part by Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harb......
  • People v. Smith
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • May 17, 1984
    ...violated a known legal duty (Bishop, supra, 412 U.S. 346, 360, 93 S.Ct. 2008, 2017, 36 L.Ed.2d 941; United States v. Pomponio (1976) 429 U.S. 10, 12, 97 S.Ct. 22, 23, 50 L.Ed.2d 12, rehg. den. 429 U.S. 987, 97 S.Ct. 510, 50 L.Ed.2d 600). Under this interpretation, the mental component of wi......
  • State v. Courtney, No. 160PA18
    • United States
    • North Carolina United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • August 16, 2019
    ...that "in such cases a trial following the Government's successful appeal of a dismissal is not barred by double jeopardy," id. at 16, 97 S. Ct. at 22, 50 L. Ed. 2d at 20.Though the State is correct that Sanford includes language analogizing the dismissal in that case to the pretrial dismiss......
  • U.S. v. Busic, Nos. 383
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • October 30, 1978
    ...need to prove a "special" intent arises only by operation of law when something more is required. See e. g., United States v. Pomponio, 429 U.S. 10, 97 S.Ct. 22, 50 L.Ed.2d 12 (1976) (per curiam) (wilfully falsifying tax returns requires a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • TAX VIOLATIONS
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Nbr. 58-3, July 2021
    • July 1, 2021
    ...F.3d 19, 26 (1st Cir. 2008) (requiring a “voluntary, intentional violation” to establish willfulness). 116. See United States v. Pomponio, 429 U.S. 10, 12 (1976) (per curiam) (requiring “more than a showing of careless disregard for the truth”). 117. See id. (stating that willfulness does n......

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