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

355 U.S. 595

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

Page 355 U. S. 596

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.