United States v. Ted A. Neff, 954 F.2d 698 (11th Cir. 1992). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Ted A. Neff, 954 F.2d 698 (11th Cir. 1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“congress did not enact the pra's public protection provision to allow omb to abrogate any duty imposed by congress. so the pra provides no refuge from his statutorily-imposed duty to file income tax returns.”
37 citation events (22 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Buser v. United States (uscfc, 2009-01-12)
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Buser v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2009 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
congress did not enact the pra's public protection provision to allow omb to abrogate any duty imposed by congress. so the pra provides no refuge from his statutorily-imposed duty to file income tax returns.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Holistic Candlers and Consumers Association v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration
D.D.C. · 2011 · confidence medium
An order consistent with this decision accompanies this Opinion. ~ ~ RICHARDJ~ United States District Judge 15 See Count I, Compi. ~~ 5, 42 (freedom of speech claims foreclosed by settled law holding that use of speech to establish an element of a violation does not violate the First Amendment, Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476, 489 (1993)); Count I, Compi. ~~ 30,35 (claims that FDA acted outside its jurisdiction by regulating devices within a particular state fail as a matter oflaw because FDA's Warning Letters pertained only to devices introduced into interstate commerce, see 21 U.S.C. § …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Holistic Candlers & Consumer Ass'n v. U.S. Food & Drug Administration
D.D.C. · 2011 · confidence medium
See Count I, Compl. ¶¶ 5, 42 (freedom of speech claims foreclosed by settled law holding that use of speech to establish an element of a violation does not violate the First Amendment, Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476, 489 , 113 S.Ct. 2194 , 124 L.Ed.2d 436 (1993)); Count I, Compl. ¶¶ 30, 35 (claims that FDA acted outside its jurisdiction by regulating devices within a particular state fail as a matter of law because FDA's Warning Letters pertained only to devices introduced into interstate commerce, see 21 U.S.C. § 331 (a), (k) (granting authority to regulate devices in interstate com…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Gross
6th Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Patridge, 507 F.3d at 1094-95 ; United States v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698, 699-700 (11th Cir.1992) (citing Wunder); United States v. Kerwin, 945 F.2d 92, 92 (5th Cir.1991) (same); United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356, 1359 (9th Cir.1991). 5 *296 We take this opportunity to reaffirm Wunder and hold that a defendant charged with either attempting to evade tax or failing to file a tax return cannot rely on 44 U.S.C. § 3512 as a defense.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Street
3rd Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Patridge, 507 F.3d 1092, 1094-95 (7th Cir.2007); United States v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698, 700 (11th Cir.1992) (concluding that “the PRA provides [the defendant] no refuge from his statutorily-imposed duty to file income tax returns”); United States v. Flicks, 947 F.2d 1356, 1359-60 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that the PRA “constitutes no defense to prosecution under 26 U.S.C. § 7203 ,” and noting that the “PRA was not meant to provide criminals with an all-purpose escape hatch”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Street
3rd Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Patridge, 507 F.3d 1092, 1094-95 (7th Cir.2007); United States v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698, 700 (11th Cir.1992) (concluding that “the PRA provides [the defendant] no refuge from his statutorily-imposed duty to file income tax returns”); United States v. Flicks, 947 F.2d 1356, 1359-60 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that the PRA “constitutes no defense to prosecution under 26 U.S.C. § 7203 ,” and noting that the “PRA was not meant to provide criminals with an all-purpose escape hatch”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cargill v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
11th Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
No. 96-511, 94 Stat. 2812 (1980), states, in part, that “no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to maintain or provide information to any agency if the information collection request involved ... does not display a current control number assigned by the [0MB] Director;” U.S. v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698, 699 (11th Cir.1992) (quoting 44 U.S.C. § 3512 (1980)) (emphasis added).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hilvety v. Commissioner
7th Cir. · 2007 · confidence medium
See Salberg v. United States, 969 F.2d 379, 384 (7th Cir.1992); United States v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698, 699-700 (11th Cir.1992); United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356, 1359 (9th Cir.1991); United States v. Dawes, 951 F.2d 1189, 1193 (10th Cir.1991).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sharon Bennett v. United States (2×) also: Cited "see"
11th Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
Green, 954 F.2d at 698; see Worstell Parking, Inc. v. Aisida, 212 Ga.App. 605 , 442 S.E.2d 469, 470-71 (1994) (refusing to hold employer liable for acts of a parking attendant who struck a customer with a stick, and concluding that the employee’s “altercation with plaintiff and her boyfriend appears to have been purely personal and not for any purpose beneficial to defendant”); Wallace, 365 S.E.2d at 463 (refusing to hold employer liable for injuries resulting from an employee’s unauthorized use of a company van for personal errands); Wittig, 356 S.E.2d at 666 (finding that employee wh…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gossner Foods, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency
D. Utah · 1996 · confidence medium
See Salberg v. United States, 969 F.2d 379, 384 (7th Cir.1992); United States v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698, 699-700 (11th Cir.1992); United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356, 1359 (9th Cir.1991); United States v. Kerwin, 945 F.2d 92 (5th Cir.1991); United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34, 38 (6th Cir.1990).
cited Cited "see" Tayra De La Caridad Antolick vs Commissioner of Internal Revenue
11th Cir. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698, 700 (11th Cir.1992) (holding that the PRA provides “no refuge from [the] statutorily-imposed duty to file income tax returns”).
discussed Cited "see" Pollinger v. Internal Revenue Service Oversight Board (2×)
11th Cir. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698, 700 (11th Cir.1992) (per curiam) (holding that the Paperwork Reduction Act has no effect on the duty to pay income, tax).
cited Cited "see" United States v. David W. Goldston
11th Cir. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698, 700 (11th Cir.1992) (holding the Paperwork Reduction Act provides no refuge from the statutory duty to file income tax returns).
discussed Cited "see" Gregory D. Vence v. Comm'r IRS
11th Cir. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698, 699-700 (11th Cir.1992) (“Congress did not enact the PRA’s public protection provision to allow OMB to abrogate any duty imposed by Congress,” and therefore, the PRA did not provide the petitioner “refuge from his statutorily-imposed duty to file income tax returns.”) (internal citations omitted).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Sherry Peel Jackson
11th Cir. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698, 699-700 (11th Cir.1992) (“Congress created [the taxpayer’s] duty to file the Returns in 26 U.S.C. § 6012 (a), and....
cited Cited "see" Taliaferro v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
11th Cir. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698, 699 (11th Cir.1992).
cited Cited "see, e.g." McCart v. Commissioner
Tax Ct. · 1993 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Neff , 954 F.2d 698 , 699-700 (11th Cir. 1992) ; United States v. Hicks , 947 F.2d 1356 , 1359-1360 ↩ (9th Cir. 1991) .
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Howell C. Willis
5th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698 (11th Cir.1992); United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34 (6th Cir.1990).
cited Cited "see, e.g." UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. HOWELL C. WILLIS
unknown court · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698 (11th Cir. 1992); United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34 (6th Cir. 1990).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Ted A. NEFF, Defendant-Appellant
91-5007.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Feb 28, 1992.
954 F.2d 698
Lowell H. Becraft, Jr., Huntsville, Ala., for defendant-appellant., Brett Dignam, Robert Lindsay, Michael E. Karam, Alan Hechtkopf, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appel-lee.
Cox, Johnson, Reavley.
Cited by 30 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

A jury found Ted A. Neff guilty of evading his federal income taxes for the years 1983, 1984, 1985, and 1986 under 26 U.S.C. § 7201. Although Neff never claimed to have filed federal income tax returns for these years (the Returns), at trial he claimed that the government could not prove that he did not file. The district court sentenced Neff to two years imprisonment, fined him $700,000, and ordered him to pay $81,816 in back-taxes plus interest and penalties as restitution. Two points merit discussion.

A. Public RecoRds Act

Before trial, the district court rejected Neffs contention that the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 et seq. (PRA), bars this prosecution.

Congress enacted the PRA to limit as much as practical federal agencies’ information requests that burden the public. See Dole v. United Steelworkers of America, 494 U.S. 26, 32-33, 110 S.Ct. 929, 933, 108 L.Ed.2d 23 (1990). So “Congress designated [the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) ] the overseer of other agencies with respect to paperwork_” Id. (emphasis added). As part of its enforcement scheme, Congress included a “Public Protection” provision in the PRA:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to maintain or provide information to any agency if the information collection request involved ... does not display a current control number assigned by the [OMB] Director....

44 U.S.C. § 3512. Neff claims that he cannot be penalized for failing to file the Returns because Treas.Reg. § 1.6091-2 (as amended in 1978), which states where income tax returns must be filed, does not have an OMB control number.

We state only the most obvious reason for rejecting Neff’s claim. Congress created Neff’s duty to file the Returns in 26 U.S.C. § 6012(a), and nowhere did Congress condition this duty on any Treasury regulation. See United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34, 38 (6th Cir.1990). Congress did not enact the PRA’s public protection provision to allow OMB to abrogate any duty imposed by Congress. See Dole, 494[*700] U.S. at 32-33, 110 S.Ct. at 933; United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356, 1359-60 (9th Cir.1991); Wunder, 919 F.2d at 38. So the PRA provides Neff no refuge from his statutorily-imposed duty to file income tax returns.

B. Resentencing

The government concedes that the district court improperly ordered Neff to pay restitution. Neff contends that, under United States v. Cochran, 883 F.2d 1012, 1015 (11th Cir.1989), his entire sentence must be vacated and this case remanded for resentencing. But Cochran and United States v. Rosen, 764 F.2d 763, 767 (11th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1061, 106 S.Ct. 806, 88 L.Ed.2d 781 (1986), only permit, as opposed to require, us to remand a case for resentencing upon concluding that part of a sentence is illegal. See Cochran, 883 F.2d at 1015 n. 6 (this court “could remand the case to the district court for resentencing on all counts”). We see no justification for prolonging this case by directing the district court to do what we can do.

We VACATE the last paragraph of the district court’s judgment concerning restitution and otherwise AFFIRM.