14 Cited authorities

United States v. Borden Co.
308 U.S. 188 (1939) Cited 523 times
In Borden, the District Court had held all four counts of the indictment invalid as a matter of construction of the Sherman Act, but had also held the third count defective as a matter of pleading.
U.S. v. Collins
920 F.2d 619 (10th Cir. 1990) Cited 257 times
Holding that although attorney's past "behavior before other courts provided ample grounds to scrutinize his application for pro hac vice admission," "because the district court in exercise of its discretion admitted [the attorney] pro hac vice, the court's subsequent revocation of such status must be evaluated as though it had disqualified a regular member of [that district court's] bar"
U.S. v. Wunder
919 F.2d 34 (6th Cir. 1990) Cited 103 times
Rejecting claim of a PRA violation and affirming conviction for failing to file a return
United States v. Mersky
361 U.S. 431 (1960) Cited 76 times
In United States v. Mersky, 361 U.S. 431 (1960), there was no decision of the Court concerning what approach should be taken.
U.S.A. v. Patridge
507 F.3d 1092 (7th Cir. 2007) Cited 32 times
Holding PRA did not foreclose tax evasion conviction
U.S. v. Hicks
947 F.2d 1356 (9th Cir. 1991) Cited 43 times
Holding that the PRA "constitutes no defense to prosecution under 26 U.S.C. § 7203," and noting that the "PRA was not meant to provide criminals with an all-purpose escape hatch"
Salberg v. U.S.
969 F.2d 379 (7th Cir. 1992) Cited 36 times
Holding in a habeas case that "Salberg's pro se status does not excuse his procedural defaults"
U.S. v. Bowers
920 F.2d 220 (4th Cir. 1990) Cited 27 times
Upholding defendants' conviction under 26 U.S.C. § 7201
U.S. v. Dawes
951 F.2d 1189 (10th Cir. 1991) Cited 24 times
Upholding determination that PRA did not shield taxpayers from a penalty for failure to file tax returns
United States v. Neff
954 F.2d 698 (11th Cir. 1992) Cited 20 times
Holding that the PRA provides "no refuge from statutorily-imposed duty to file income tax returns"
Section 1.6091-2 - Place for filing income tax returns
26 C.F.R. § 1.6091-2 Cited 14 times
Allowing filing by hand-carrying to "any person assigned the responsibility to receive hand-carried returns in the local Internal Revenue Service office"

USA v. Springer et al

14 Cited authorities

In Borden, the District Court had held all four counts of the indictment invalid as a matter of construction of the Sherman Act, but had also held the third count defective as a matter of pleading.

Rejecting claim of a PRA violation and affirming conviction for failing to file a return

In United States v. Mersky, 361 U.S. 431 (1960), there was no decision of the Court concerning what approach should be taken.

Holding PRA did not foreclose tax evasion conviction

Holding that the PRA "constitutes no defense to prosecution under 26 U.S.C. § 7203," and noting that the "PRA was not meant to provide criminals with an all-purpose escape hatch"

Holding in a habeas case that "Salberg's pro se status does not excuse his procedural defaults"

Upholding defendants' conviction under 26 U.S.C. § 7201

Upholding determination that PRA did not shield taxpayers from a penalty for failure to file tax returns

Holding that the PRA provides "no refuge from statutorily-imposed duty to file income tax returns"

Allowing filing by hand-carrying to "any person assigned the responsibility to receive hand-carried returns in the local Internal Revenue Service office"