United States v. Black
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
843 F.2d 1456 (1988)
- Written by Robert Cane, JD
Facts
Fred Black (defendant) failed to file tax returns in 1978, 1979, and 1981. Black had received at least $65,000 of taxable income in each of those years totaling over $300,000. Beginning in 1975, Black was subject to an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) lien of approximately $3 million. Black had created two corporations during this time. Black routinely used money from the two corporations to pay his personal expenses. He had no personal bank accounts and paid his personal expenses with checks drawn on accounts of the two corporations. Black admitted that he intended to conceal his spending activities form the IRS. However, Black claimed that the funds from the corporations were loans that he intended to pay back. However, there is nothing in the record to suggest that Black paid back or intended to pay back the money received from the two corporations. Black was charged with tax evasion. At trial, the government (plaintiff) used evidence of the personal expenditures paid for with the corporations’ accounts to show that Black had received specific items of income that he failed to report to the IRS. Black was convicted for income tax evasion. He appealed to United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Silberman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
