United States v. John T. Clinton
574 F.2d 464
May 3, 1978 · Docket 77-2447
Headnotes
Generated summaries- Headnote 1
The Court explained that absent a statutory provision locating the crime, the court looks to the character of the offense and where the prohibited act or omission took place.
- Headnote 2
The Court held that a tax‑return omission can be committed where the taxpayer lives or at the designated IRS office that receives the return, giving either district jurisdiction.
- Headnote 3
Because the offense can be committed at the residence or at the collection point, a federal district court in either location may lawfully bring the indictment.
- Headnote 4
The Court found the defendant’s allegations insufficient to meet the two‑pronged test required for dismissal based on selective or discriminatory prosecution.
- Headnote 5
The statute does not specify where the offense occurs, so the court looks to the nature of the crime. Failure to file a return can be committed at the taxpayer’s home or at the IRS office where the return should be mailed, giving both districts jurisdiction.
- Headnote 6
The court requires proof of both a discriminatory motive and the existence of comparable non‑protected individuals who were not charged; without such evidence the claim is dismissed as frivolous.
Opinion
Appellant, John T. Clinton, a self-proclaimed “tax protester,” was found guilty of two counts of willful and knowing failure to file a federal income tax return for the years 1972 and 1973. This was a violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203.
In this appeal he challenges the authority of the United States Attorney for the Western District of Washington to prosecute him for offenses allegedly not committed in that district. At all times, appellant has been a resident of Spokane, Washington, which is in the Eastern District of Washington. As a second defense, he charges that the United States Attorney engaged in selective or discriminatory prosecution.
Neither argument is well taken.
The United States Attorney for the Western District of Washington initiated appellant’s prosecution. Appellant moved to dismiss the information on the basis that the United States Attorney in the Western District had no jurisdiction over him since he was a resident of the Eastern District. The district court construed the motion to dismiss as a motion to transfer venue to the Eastern District. This was granted under 18 U.S.C. § 3237(b). Appellant then renewed his motion to dismiss, but it was denied.
The place of commission of the offense of failure to file a return is not specifically set out in the statute. Section 7203 proscribes the failure to do a specified act required by the Internal Revenue Code and the regulations promulgated under it. When a statute does not indicate where Congress considered the place of committing the crime to be, the site or locus delicti must be determined from the nature of the crime and the location of the acts or omissions constituting the offense. United States v. Anderson, 328 U.S. 699, 66 S.Ct. 1213, 90 L.Ed. 1529 (1946).
Failure to file a tax return is an offense either at the defendant’s place of residence, or at the collection point where the return should have been filed. Yarborough v. United States, 230 F.2d 56, 58 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 969, 76 S.Ct. 1034, 100 L.Ed. 1487 (1956); United States v. Commerford, 64 F.2d 28, 32-33 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 289 U.S. 759, 53 S.Ct. 792, 77 L.Ed. 1502 (1933); see United States v. Anderson, supra. Since appellant could have filed his return at the collection center in Seattle, Washington, the United States Attorney for the Western District had jurisdiction to prosecute the offense.
The evidence is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim of discriminatory selective prosecution or to take his claim past the frivolous stage. United States v. Oaks, 508 F.2d 1403 (9th Cir. 1974).
The judgment is AFFIRMED.