Boulware v. United States, 552 U.S. 421 (2008)
Primary Holding
A distributee accused of criminal tax evasion may claim return-of-capital treatment for corporate distributions without needing to produce evidence of intent by either the distributee or the corporation regarding the nature of the distribution.
In the case of Boulware v. United States, the Supreme Court decided that if someone receives money from a corporation, they don’t have to prove that either they or the corporation intended for that money to be a return of capital (which is not taxable) if they are accused of tax evasion. This ruling matters because it helps protect individuals from being unfairly taxed on corporate distributions they receive, even if there are questions about their intentions. This case is relevant for consumers who receive money from corporations, especially if they are facing tax-related accusations. It ensures that they can claim certain tax benefits without needing to provide evidence of intent, making it easier for them to manage their tax responsibilities.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
In Boulware v. United States, 552 U.S. 421 (2008), the underlying dispute arose from allegations against Michael H. Boulware, who was charged with multiple counts of tax evasion and filing a false income tax return. Boulware, the president and controlling shareholder of Hawaiian Isles Enterprises (HIE), was accused of diverting corporate funds for personal use, which the government argued constituted taxable income. The case centered on whether Boulware could claim that these distributions were nontaxable returns of capital under the Internal Revenue Code, specifically Sections 301 and 316(a), without demonstrating the intent of either himself or the corporation to treat the distributions as such. The procedural history of the case began with Boulware's trial, where the United States presented evidence of his systematic diversion of funds from HIE. Following his conviction, Boulware appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the conviction. He subsequently sought a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case to resolve the question of whether a distributee accused of tax evasion must provide evidence of intent regarding the nature of the corporate distributions. The relevant background context involves the legal framework established by the Internal Revenue Code regarding corporate distributions and the tax implications of such distributions. Sections 301 and 316(a) define how distributions to shareholders are treated for tax purposes, particularly distinguishing between taxable dividends and nontaxable returns of capital based on the corporation's earnings and profits. The case highlights the complexities of tax law and the burden of proof required in criminal tax evasion cases, particularly concerning the determination of tax deficiencies and the treatment of corporate distributions.
Whether a distributee accused of criminal tax evasion may claim return-of-capital treatment without producing evidence that either he or the corporation intended a capital return when the distribution occurred.
The judgment is reversed.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- January 8, 2008
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Majority Author
- Souter
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
Regalado Cuellar v. United States, 553 U.S. 550 (2008)
Consumer WonThe federal money laundering statute requires the government to demonstrate that a defendant engaged in conduct beyond merely hiding illicit funds during transport; it must show that the defendant took steps to conceal the illegal nature of the funds in a manner that indicates an intent to promote or conceal unlawful activity.
MeadWestvaco Corp. v. Illinois Dept. of Revenue, 553 U.S. 16 (2008)
Consumer WonThe Due Process and Commerce Clauses prohibit states from taxing "extraterritorial values," but a state may tax an apportioned share of the value generated by the intrastate and extrastate activities of a multistate enterprise if those activities constitute a "unitary business.
Commissioner v. Banks, 543 U.S. 426 (2005)
Consumer LostWhen a litigant's recovery constitutes income, the portion of that recovery paid to the attorney as a contingent fee is included in the litigant's gross income under the Internal Revenue Code.
Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co., 553 U.S. 639 (2008)
Consumer WonA plaintiff asserting a RICO claim predicated on mail fraud is not required to plead and prove that it relied on the defendant’s alleged misrepresentations.