United States v. Hooks
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
848 F.2d 785 (1988)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
Celia Loge and Citizens National Bank of Evansville (Citizens) were the co-executors of the will of Celia’s husband, Floyd Loge. Celia and her daughter gave Citizens stocks and bonds to be included in Floyd’s estate. However, Celia withheld approximately $575,000 in bearer bonds, which Celia told Citizens she could not find. William Hooks (defendant) asked his employer to store the missing bonds in the employer’s safe deposit box, explaining that he wanted to conceal his connection to the bonds. Patrick Richter, a loan officer at Hooks’s employer’s bank, told Hooks that he could convert the bonds to cash, but Hooks stated that he wanted to avoid any connection to the bonds. After initial failure, by March 1979, Richter arranged the liquidation of the bonds via a bank that issued money orders and checks to Richter and others. In March 1980, Citizens filed Floyd’s estate-tax return without including the bonds. Hooks and Richter were convicted of, among other things, aiding and abetting the preparation of a materially false estate-tax return in violation of Internal Revenue Code (code) § 7206(2). Hooks appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction because the evidence showed that he concealed and cashed the bonds, not that he aided or abetted the filing of a false return. Per Hooks, only a taxpayer, tax preparer, or supplier of information for a return could aid and abet a false tax filing. Hooks further argued that Celia violated § 7206(2) when she withheld the bonds from Citizens and thus his subsequent conduct was irrelevant.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Grant, 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.