|
Cheek was charged with willfully
failing to file a federal income tax return and willfully
attempting to evade income taxes. Although admitting he had filed no returns, Cheek testified he had
not acted willfully because he sincerely believed, based on his indoctrination by a group believing the
federal tax system is unconstitutional and his own study, that the tax laws were being
unconstitutionally enforced and that his actions were lawful.
In instructing the jury, the court stated that an honest but unreasonable belief is not a defense,
and does not negate willfulness, and that Cheek’s beliefs that wages are not income and that he was
not a taxpayer within the meaning
of the Code were not objectively
reasonable. The court also instructed the jury that a person’s opinion that the tax laws violate his
constitutional rights does not constitute a good-faith misunderstanding of the law. Cheek was convicted,
and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the good-faith jury instructions and stated that a good-faith belief
does indeed negate willfulness, and that the jury should have been instructed as such. The Supreme Court
stated that if the jury had believed Cheek’s good-faith belief was sincere, then the plaintiff would
have failed to carry the burden of proof to those particular charges. Forbidding a jury to consider
evidence that might negate willfulness would raise a serious question under the Sixth
Amendment’s jury trial provision. The Supreme Court reviewed three cases in which the term
willfulness had been previously defined by the Supreme Court: United
States v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389 (1933), United States v.
Bishop, 412 U.S. 346 (1973), United States v. Pomponio, 429
U.S. 10 (1976). However, one must understand that negating willfulness does not mean no law was
violated. A good-faith belief only negates the willful part of the charges. The case was remanded with
that directive, and Cheek was convicted nonetheless.
Of course, Cheek was attempting to prove a negative. The burden of proof was on the plaintiff to
prove Cheek had a requirement to file, not on Cheek to prove he did not. This should have been Cheek’s
defense.
Full Text: Cheek v. United States,
498 U.S. 192 (1991) |