Summary

Portrait of William O. Douglas William O. Douglas Achilli v. United States — Dissent

I would not make the penal consequences of an Act turn on a construction so tenuous. I rebel against it, especially because the construction now adopted sweeps the ground out from under dozens of criminal convictions which the Government has obtained under § 3616 (a) . Between October 1952 and March 1957 (when the Government first suggested to this Court that § 3616 (a) was inapplicable to the income tax) it invoked § 3616 (a) in 175 cases of alleged income tax evasion.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of William O. Douglas William O. Douglas Achilli v. United States — Dissent

Now it appears that the Government dealt unlawfully with this group of citizens. Those who were convicted on indictments might have to be resentenced. Those who were convicted on informations must be released.
It is no answer to say that the result is 'a break' for these defendants. From the statistics submitted to us by the Government it appears that many of these cases were so minor it is difficult to imagine a ground jury returning indictments on them.
I would adhere to the administrative construction that § 3616 (a) applied to the income tax. Congress apparently was of that view.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of William O. Douglas William O. Douglas Achilli v. United States — Dissent

In the 1939 Internal Revenue Code that section was part of Subchapter B, 'Determination of Tax Liability,' which was a part of chapter 34, 'Information and Returns,' which in turn was part of Subtitle D, 'GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.' SECTIOn 61 mADe applicable tO the income tax provisions 'All administrative special, or stamp provisions of law, including the law relating to the assessment of taxes, so far as applicable * * *.' These administrative provisions include the chapter and subtitle of which § 3616 (a) is a part.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature