United States v. Arthur D. Ward
Cases that cite this one
34 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Robert W. Herriman v. Commissioner of IRS (11th Cir. 2013)
- United States v. Milton Hargraves Baxley, II (11th Cir. 2007)
- In re Bertelt (United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida 2000)
- United States v. Bell (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 1998)
- In re Weatherley (United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1994)
- Greer v. United States (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 2025)
- United States v. Jason C. Anderson (11th Cir. 2023)
- Beaudry v. Clay Lacy Aviation, Inc. (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 2023)
- Aubrey Maurice Garrett v. Internal Revenue Service (11th Cir. 2017)
- Michael Balice v. Commissioner of Internal Reven (3d Cir. 2016)
- Batsch v. Comm'r (United States Tax Court 2016)
- Bennett v. Comm'r (United States Tax Court 2014)
- Hill v. Comm'r (United States Tax Court 2013)
- David Roy Callihan v. Commissioner of IRS (11th Cir. 2012)
- Nelson v. Comm'r (United States Tax Court 2012)
- Nix v. Comm'r (United States Tax Court 2012)
- United States v. Jason W. Bennett (11th Cir. 2011)
- Morgan v. United States (11th Cir. 2011)
- United States v. John Korman (11th Cir. 2010)
- United States v. John Korman (11th Cir. 2010)
- United States v. Evangelos Lena (11th Cir. 2010)
- Tinnerman v. Comm'r (United States Tax Court 2010)
- United States v. Cowan (United States District Court for the District of Hawaii 2008)
- James Leaf v. CDI Engineering Group, Inc. (Tex. App. 2005)
- United States v. Kahn (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 2004)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Arthur D. Ward was convicted of three counts of tax evasion (26 U.S.C. § 7201), and two counts of making false statements or claims to a federal agency. 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Ward makes three arguments on this appeal. First, he suggests that the United States has jurisdiction over only Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves within the states, and the territories and possessions of the United States. Secondly, he interprets the term “individual” within the Internal Revenue Code to apply only to those individuals located within this jurisdiction of the United States. Ward reaches this twisted conclusion by misinterpreting a portion of the Income Tax Code. The 1918 Act defined the words “state” or “United States” to “include” United States territories and the District of Columbia; Ward asks this court to interpret the word “include” as a term of limitation, rather than of definition. Finally, Ward maintains that the only persons expressly and statutorily liable for income tax are the withholding agents of nonresident aliens and foreign corporations.
We find each of appellant’s contentions to be utterly without merit. The district court properly denied Ward’s motions for acquittal, and properly refused to instruct the jury as to Ward’s theory of his defense. The opinion of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.