United States v. Massei, 355 U.S. 595 (1958)
U.S. Supreme Court
United States v. Massei, 355 U.S. 595 (1958)United States v. Massei
No. 98
Argued January 9, 1958
Decided March 3, 1958
355 U.S. 595
Syllabus
In a tax evasion prosecution based on the net-worth method of proof sustained in Holland v. United States, 348 U. S. 121, proof of a likely source of the defendant's net worth increases is not essential if all possible sources of nontaxable income are negatived by the evidence.
241 F.2d 895 affirmed on another ground.
U.S. Supreme Court
United States v. Massei, 355 U.S. 595 (1958)United States v. Massei
No. 98
Argued January 9, 1958
Decided March 3, 1958
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
Syllabus
In a tax evasion prosecution based on the net-worth method of proof sustained in Holland v. United States, 348 U. S. 121, proof of a likely source of the defendant's net worth increases is not essential if all possible sources of nontaxable income are negatived by the evidence.
241 F.2d 895 affirmed on another ground.
PER CURIAM.
The Court of Appeals has based its remand in part on the absence of "proof of likely source," which it regards as an "indispensable" element of the net worth method, citing Holland v. United States, 348 U. S. 121, in support of its conclusion. In Holland, we held that proof of a likely source was "sufficient" to convict in a net worth case where the Government did not negative all the possible nontaxable sources of the alleged net worth increase. This was not intended to imply that proof of a likely source was necessary in every case. On the contrary, should all possible sources of nontaxable income be negatived, there would be no necessity for proof of a likely source. The above explanation must be taken
into consideration in applying the Holland doctrine to this case. A new trial being permissible under the terms of the order of the Court of Appeals, we affirm its judgment.
Affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS would affirm the judgment below on the opinion of the Court of Appeals, 241 F.2d 895, 900-901.
Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.