United States v. Fred B. Black, Jr., (Two Cases)
843 F.2d 1456, 269 U.S. App. D.C. 128 (1988)
Rule of Law:
When the government demonstrates a defendant paid for personal expenses using funds from a corporate account, it is employing the 'specific items' method of proving tax evasion, which does not require it to establish the defendant's opening net worth or negate all possible non-taxable sources of income.
Facts:
- From approximately 1975, Fred Black was subject to an IRS lien of about three million dollars.
- Black created two corporations, Dunbar and Machine-A-Rama, which the government alleged were dummy corporations.
- During the period of the indictment, Black maintained no personal bank accounts.
- Black used checks drawn on the bank accounts of Dunbar and Machine-A-Rama to pay for numerous personal expenses, such as rent for his Watergate apartment, jewelry, and restaurant bills.
- Black admitted he created Dunbar to conceal from the IRS money he was spending and to avoid holding property in his own name.
- For the tax years 1978, 1979, and 1981, Black received substantial funds from these corporations for personal use but failed to file any income tax returns.
- Black claimed that any money he took from these corporations was in the form of loans that he felt obligated to repay.
Procedural Posture:
- Fred Black was indicted in a federal trial court on multiple counts, including three counts of tax evasion for the years 1978, 1979, and 1981.
- Following a forty-day trial, a jury convicted Black on the three counts of tax evasion.
- The jury acquitted Black on eight other counts, and the court declared a mistrial on the remaining counts because the jury was deadlocked.
- Fred Black (appellant) appealed his tax evasion convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
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 government's use of evidence showing a defendant paid for personal expenses with checks drawn on corporate accounts constitute a 'specific items' method of proving tax evasion, thereby relieving the government of the requirement to negate all possible non-taxable sources of income as is required under indirect methods of proof?
Opinions:
Majority - Silberman, Circuit Judge
Yes. When the government identifies specific transactions, such as corporate funds used for personal expenses, as unreported income, it is using the direct 'specific items' method of proof and is not required to meet the more stringent safeguards of indirect methods, like the 'cash expenditures' method. The court distinguished between direct proof, where the transaction itself is the alleged income, and indirect proof, where expenditures are used as circumstantial evidence of a hidden income source. Here, the government's theory was not that Black's spending implied an unknown income source, but that the corporate checks used for personal expenses were themselves the specific items of taxable income. Although the prosecutor and trial judge confusingly used the term 'expenditures method,' the substance of the case rested on tracing specific corporate checks to Black's personal benefit. Black's defense that the checks were 'loans' further confirmed the nature of the case, as he was challenging the character of the specific items, not claiming the funds came from a non-taxable 'cash hoard.' Therefore, the government was not required to prove Black's opening net worth or negate every possible non-taxable source for his spending.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the distinction between direct ('specific items') and indirect ('cash expenditures') methods of proof in tax evasion cases. It solidifies the principle that when prosecutors can trace specific diversions of corporate funds to a defendant's personal use, they can treat those diversions as direct evidence of income. This lowers the evidentiary burden on the government compared to indirect methods, which require a comprehensive financial analysis to rule out non-taxable sources. The ruling strengthens the government's ability to prosecute individuals who use corporate entities to conceal income, as it provides a more straightforward path to conviction without needing to conduct a full, and often difficult, net worth investigation.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: United States v. Fred B. Black, Jr., (Two Cases) (1988)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"