Supreme Court of the United States, 1958

United States v. Massei

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided March 3, 1958 · Douglas

355 U.S. 595; 78 S. Ct. 495; 2 L. Ed. 2d 517; 1958 U.S. LEXIS 1888; 1 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1004 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Roger Fisher argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Rice and Joseph F. Goetten., Richard Maguire argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.

Cases that cite this one

175 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Constantine Thomas (1st Cir. 1958)
Jay J. And Rose B. Armes v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (5th Cir. 1971)
United States v. William J. Scott (7th Cir. 1982)
United States v. Adams (5th Cir. 2009)
United States v. William Goldstein (7th Cir. 1982)
United States v. Tommy Hiett (5th Cir. 1978)
United States v. Arthur Michael Newman (5th Cir. 1972)
Bernard G. McGarry v. United States (1st Cir. 1968)
Amen and Rose Wardy v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (5th Cir. 1968)
United States v. Schipani (District Court, E.D. New York 1968)
United States v. Tanco-Baez (1st Cir. 2019)
Scott v. Comm'r (United States Tax Court 2012)
Parks v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1990)
United States v. Eugene Mastropieri, Herbert Pate and Carolyn Pate (2d Cir. 1982)
United States v. Sylvio J. Grasso (2d Cir. 1980)
United States v. Goichman (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1976)
United States v. Hector R. Calles (5th Cir. 1973)
Dileo v. Comm'r (United States Tax Court 1991)
United States v. Bobby M. Smith (5th Cir. 1989)
United States v. Angelo Costanzo (2d Cir. 1978)
United States v. William Edward Bethea (4th Cir. 1976)
Tully v. Foster v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (6th Cir. 1973)
United States v. Joseph F. Schipani (2d Cir. 1969)
Ehlers v. Vinal (United States District Court, Nebraska 1966)
Shahadi v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1958)

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

Per Curiam.

The Court of Appeals has based its remand in part on the absence of “proof of likely source,” which it regards as an “indispensable” element of the net worth method, citing Holland v. United States, 348 U. S. 121, in support of its conclusion. In Holland we held that proof of a likely source was “sufficient” to convict in a net worth case where the Government did not negative all the possible nontaxable sources of the alleged net worth increase. This was not intended to imply that proof of a likely source was necessary in every case. On the contrary, should all possible sources of nontaxable income be negatived, there would be no necessity for proof of a likely source. The above explanation must be taken *596 into consideration in applying the Holland doctrine to this case. A new trial being permissible under the terms of the order of the Court of Appeals, we affirm its judgment.

Mr. Justice Douglas would affirm the judgment below on the opinion of the Court of Appeals, 241 F. 2d 895, 900-901.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.