United States v. Marvin Morris Wangrud
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marvin Morris WANGRUD, Defendant-Appellant
Opinion
OPINION Before WRIGHT, CHOY and KENNEDY, Circuit Judges.
PER. CURIAM:
Mr. Wangrud appeals his conviction on two counts of wilful failure to make an income tax return. 26 U.S.C. § 7203 . For the tax years in question the defendant received checks from the State Farm Insurance Company as compensation for his services. He now argues that he did not receive money, since the checks could be cashed only for federal reserve notes and that these are not redeemable in specie. We publish this opinion solely to make it clear that this argument has absolutely no merit. We affirm this conviction.
By statute it is established that federal reserve notes, on an equal basis with other coins and currencies of the United States, shall be legal tender for all debts, public and private, including taxes. 31 U.S.C. 8 392 (Supp.1976). This statute is well within the constitutional authority of Con *496 gress. U.S.Const. art. I, § 8. It so completely disposes of appellant’s argument that it is unnecessary for us to invoke other provisions of the Internal Revenue Code which would be equally dispositive, defining as income compensation received in forms other than money. See Internal Revenue Code of 1954, § 61.
We have considered appellant’s other argument and we find it to be without merit.
The conviction is affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(“By statute it 23 is established that federal reserve notes, on an equal basis with other coins and currencies of the 24 United States, shall be legal tender for all debts, public and private, including taxes.”)
-
(Federal reserve notes are money)
Cited by 45 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Courts of Appeals9
- Federal District Courts6
- Bankruptcy Courts1
- Federal Specialty Courts17
- State Highest Courts6
- State Appellate Courts6
Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.