United States v. Norbert T. Kerwin
Cases that cite this one
20 later published cases cite this decision.
- Aldrich v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1993)
- United States v. Gross (6th Cir. 2010)
- United States v. Rupe (5th Cir. 2009)
- Willis v. Commissioner (5th Cir. 2009)
- United States v. Ferrand (5th Cir. 2008)
- United States v. Ionia Management S.A. (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 2007)
- Stockton v. State Taxation & Revenue Department (N.M. Ct. App. 2007)
- United States v. Lawrence, Robert (7th Cir. 2007)
- United States v. Kun Yun Jho (District Court, E.D. Texas 2006)
- United States v. Ouwenga (6th Cir. 2006)
- Gossner Foods, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency (District Court, D. Utah 1996)
- Andreas v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1993)
- McCart v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1993)
- Freas v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1993)
- U.S. v. Willis (5th Cir. 1992)
- United States v. Emmett Donald Doyle (5th Cir. 1992)
- United States v. Howell C. Willis (5th Cir. 1992)
- United States v. Arthur H. Ryan, III (7th Cir. 1992)
- Robert A. Salberg v. United States (7th Cir. 1992)
- Ferguson v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1992)
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
Norbert Kerwin was convicted of three counts of willful failure to file an income tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203. On appeal, he argues that under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, he cannot be convicted, because that statute provides that “no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to ... provide information to any agency if the information collection request ... does not display a current control number assigned by the Director [of the Office of Management and Budget]”. 44 U.S.C. § 3512.
Kerwin asserts that the regulations and instructions concerning the filing of income tax returns do not contain such control numbers. This issue was considered in United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34, 38 (6th Cir. 1990), which held that the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply to the statutory requirement that a taxpayer must file a return. Since Kerwin, like the taxpayer in Wunder, was convicted of that statute, which is not an information request, there is no violation of the Paperwork Reduction Act. For the reasons set forth in Wunder, we AFFIRM.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.