United States v. Bishop
412 U.S. 346, 93 S. Ct. 2008, 1973 U.S. LEXIS 65 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The word "willfully," as used in the federal tax crime statutes (both felony and misdemeanor), possesses a uniform meaning, requiring a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty.
Facts:
- Cecil J. Bishop, a lawyer practicing in Sacramento, California, owned an interest in a walnut ranch with his father.
- After his father's death, Bishop's stepmother, Louise, managed the ranch's finances.
- Bishop periodically sent checks to Louise for ranch expenses, loan principal payments, and improvements.
- Louise maintained records of ranch expenditures and submitted itemized lists to Bishop at the end of each calendar year.
- For his 1963 federal income tax return, Bishop asserted all amounts paid to Louise and all expenses Louise listed as business deductions, resulting in double deductions for ranch expenditures and the inclusion of non-deductible personal items.
- Bishop similarly included non-deductible amounts in the ranch figures deducted in his 1964 and 1965 returns.
- The aggregate amount of improper deductions taken by Bishop for the three taxable years exceeded $45,000.
- Bishop based his defense at trial on the claim that he was unaware of the double deductions and improper deductions, stating his law office secretary prepared the schedules from his records and Louise's information, and he merely failed to check the returns for accuracy.
Procedural Posture:
- Cecil J. Bishop was indicted on three counts of felony violations under 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) for his federal income tax returns for 1963, 1964, and 1965.
- A jury in the District Court convicted Bishop on all three counts.
- The District Court judge refused Bishop's request to instruct the jury on a lesser-included-offense based on the misdemeanor statute, 26 U.S.C. § 7207.
- Bishop was sentenced to concurrent two-year prison terms on each count, with all but 90 days suspended, placed on probation for five years, and fined $5,000.
- Bishop appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit (appellate court) reversed the District Court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, ruling that the trial judge improperly refused the lesser-included-offense instruction because it believed "willfully" in the misdemeanor statute required a lesser degree of intent than in the felony statute.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari due to a division among federal circuits concerning the interpretation of "willfully" in tax crime statutes.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the word "willfully" have a different meaning, requiring a lesser degree of intent, in the misdemeanor tax statute (26 U.S.C. § 7207) than in the felony tax statute (26 U.S.C. § 7206(1))?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Blackmun
No, the word "willfully" has the same meaning in both 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) (felony) and § 7207 (misdemeanor), denoting a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty. The Court rejected the Ninth Circuit's interpretation, which drew a distinction between the meaning of "willfully" in tax felony and misdemeanor statutes based on language in Spies v. United States. The Court clarified that Spies's discussion of a hypothetical statutory scheme was misinterpreted by the Ninth Circuit, and subsequent cases like Berra v. United States and Sansone v. United States implicitly rejected such a distinction. In Sansone, the Court stated that if a taxpayer's material misstatement resulting in a tax deficiency was "willful in the sense that he knew that he should have reported more income than he did," he would be guilty under both the felony and misdemeanor statutes. The Court emphasized that while §§ 7206(1) and 7207 have "substantially different express terms" regarding the nature of the document and the act (e.g., perjury declaration, "makes and subscribes" versus "delivers or discloses"), these differences establish how the statutes apply to different types of conduct or documents, rather than altering the core meaning of "willfully." The Court affirmed that Congress intended "willfully" to describe a "constant rather than a variable" mental state across the tax penalty formula, requiring "bad faith or evil intent," "evil motive and want of justification," or knowledge of unreported income, to distinguish purposeful violators from those who make innocent errors. Therefore, a lesser-included-offense instruction was not required because a conviction of the misdemeanor, given the common meaning of "willfully," would necessarily support a conviction for the felony.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Douglas
Mr. Justice Douglas would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, as expressed in Judge Powell's opinion, which held that a lesser-included-offense instruction was improperly refused.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying the uniform meaning of the term "willfully" across various federal tax crime statutes, eliminating a circuit split and simplifying the prosecutorial burden. By affirming that "willfully" consistently means a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty, the Court reinforced a high standard of mens rea for criminal tax offenses, ensuring that mere negligence or good-faith errors do not lead to criminal conviction. This decision streamlined trial proceedings by restricting the availability of lesser-included-offense instructions where the only disputed element is the degree of willfulness, which is now understood to be constant. It emphasizes that Congress distinguished tax offenses by the nature of the proscribed conduct and documents, not by varying levels of intent for the term "willfully."
