WEKO3
アイテム
{"_buckets": {"deposit": "3daf199b-b6af-487e-8c18-9d0efc57d778"}, "_deposit": {"created_by": 3, "id": "7347", "owners": [3], "pid": {"revision_id": 0, "type": "depid", "value": "7347"}, "status": "published"}, "_oai": {"id": "oai:ouj.repo.nii.ac.jp:00007347", "sets": ["450"]}, "author_link": ["9121", "9120"], "item_10002_biblio_info_7": {"attribute_name": "書誌情報", "attribute_value_mlt": [{"bibliographicIssueDates": {"bibliographicIssueDate": "1995-03-30", "bibliographicIssueDateType": "Issued"}, "bibliographicPageEnd": "73", "bibliographicPageStart": "57", "bibliographicVolumeNumber": "12", "bibliographic_titles": [{"bibliographic_title": "放送大学研究年報"}, {"bibliographic_title": "Journal of the University of the Air", "bibliographic_titleLang": "en"}]}]}, "item_10002_source_id_11": {"attribute_name": "書誌レコードID", "attribute_value_mlt": [{"subitem_source_identifier": "AN10019636", "subitem_source_identifier_type": "NCID"}]}, "item_10002_source_id_9": {"attribute_name": "ISSN", "attribute_value_mlt": [{"subitem_source_identifier": "0911-4505", "subitem_source_identifier_type": "ISSN"}]}, "item_10002_textarea_25": {"attribute_name": "抄録(英)", "attribute_value_mlt": [{"subitem_textarea_language": "en", "subitem_textarea_value": " This paper analyzes the \"willfulness\" requirement of criminal tax evasion in light of U.S. Supreme Court decisions. In Ratzlaf, 62 U.S.L.W. 4037(1994), the United States Supreme Court examined the elements that government must give proof in order to convict a taxpayer for \"structure\" transactions-i. e., breaking up a single transaction above the reporting threshold into two or more separate transactions-for the purpose of evading a financial institution\u0027s reporting requirement. This decision established a high standard for the \"willfulness\" requirement. In Murdock, 290 U.S. 389 (1933), the Court interpreted the term \"willfully\" as used in the criminal tax statutes generally to mean \"an act done with a bad purpose,\" or with \"an evil motive.\" In Bishop, 412 U.S. 346(1973), the Court described the term \"willfully\" as connoting \"a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty,\" and did so with specific reference to the \"bad faith or evil intent\" language employed in Murdock. Later, in Pomponio,429 U.S. 10(1976) (per curiam), the jury was given an instruction on willfulness similar to the standard set forth in Bishop, and was additionally instructed that \"good motive alone is never a defense where the act done or omitted is a crime.\" The defendants in this case were convicted. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the decision, concluding that the latter instruction was improper because the statute required a finding of bad purpose or evil motive. The Court then reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, stating that the Court of Appeals incorrectly assumed that the reference to evil motive in Bishop and prior cases requires proof of any motive other than an intentional violation of a known legal duty. The Court concluded that an additional instruction on good faith was unnecessary. Murdock - Bishop - Pomponio conclusively established that the standard for the statutory willfulness requirement is the voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty. In Cheek, 498 U.S. 192(1991), however, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and the District Court ruled that a good-faith misunderstanding of the law, if it is to negate willfulness, must be objectively reasonable. The Court vacated and remanded the judgment, because the standard would deprive defendants of the right to a trial by a jury. In Ratzlaf the Court concluded that Cheek\u0027s definition of willfulness, which previously had been applied in criminal tax evasion cases, was also the appropriate standard for determining the requisite intent for criminal violations of the currency reporting statutes. That means Cheek\u0027s willfulness standard may extend well beyond not only criminal tax fraud law, but also anti-structuring law. The Ratzlaf-Cheek standard may be applied to any other criminal transaction which is not mala in se but mala prohibita. This jurisprudence also should be introduced into the Japanese system."}]}, "item_creator": {"attribute_name": "著者", "attribute_type": "creator", "attribute_value_mlt": [{"creatorNames": [{"creatorName": "橋本, 裕藏"}, {"creatorName": "ハシモト, ユウゾウ", "creatorNameLang": "ja-Kana"}], "nameIdentifiers": [{"nameIdentifier": "9120", "nameIdentifierScheme": "WEKO"}]}, {"creatorNames": [{"creatorName": "Hashimoto, Yuzo", "creatorNameLang": "en"}], "nameIdentifiers": [{"nameIdentifier": "9121", "nameIdentifierScheme": "WEKO"}]}]}, "item_files": {"attribute_name": "ファイル情報", "attribute_type": "file", "attribute_value_mlt": [{"accessrole": "open_date", "date": [{"dateType": "Available", "dateValue": "2013-06-14"}], "displaytype": "detail", "download_preview_message": "", "file_order": 0, "filename": "NO_12-57-73.pdf", "filesize": [{"value": "2.1 MB"}], "format": "application/pdf", "future_date_message": "", "is_thumbnail": false, "licensetype": "license_free", "mimetype": "application/pdf", "size": 2100000.0, "url": {"label": "NO_12-57-73", "url": "https://ouj.repo.nii.ac.jp/record/7347/files/NO_12-57-73.pdf"}, "version_id": "4cd0ef33-0f3c-42ab-928e-1c7a2a7482b2"}]}, "item_language": {"attribute_name": "言語", "attribute_value_mlt": [{"subitem_language": "jpn"}]}, "item_resource_type": {"attribute_name": "資源タイプ", "attribute_value_mlt": [{"resourcetype": "departmental bulletin paper", "resourceuri": "http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501"}]}, "item_title": "租税逋脱罪の故意", "item_titles": {"attribute_name": "タイトル", "attribute_value_mlt": [{"subitem_title": "租税逋脱罪の故意"}, {"subitem_title": "The \"Willfulness\" Requirement of Criminal Tax Evasion", "subitem_title_language": "en"}]}, "item_type_id": "10002", "owner": "3", "path": ["450"], "permalink_uri": "https://ouj.repo.nii.ac.jp/records/7347", "pubdate": {"attribute_name": "公開日", "attribute_value": "2013-06-14"}, "publish_date": "2013-06-14", "publish_status": "0", "recid": "7347", "relation": {}, "relation_version_is_last": true, "title": ["租税逋脱罪の故意"], "weko_shared_id": 3}
租税逋脱罪の故意
https://ouj.repo.nii.ac.jp/records/7347
https://ouj.repo.nii.ac.jp/records/7347c98292bf-7a28-42d0-b665-1a3e473e016e
名前 / ファイル | ライセンス | アクション |
---|---|---|
NO_12-57-73 (2.1 MB)
|
|
Item type | 紀要論文 / Departmental Bulletin Paper(1) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
公開日 | 2013-06-14 | |||||
タイトル | ||||||
タイトル | 租税逋脱罪の故意 | |||||
タイトル | ||||||
言語 | en | |||||
タイトル | The "Willfulness" Requirement of Criminal Tax Evasion | |||||
言語 | ||||||
言語 | jpn | |||||
資源タイプ | ||||||
資源タイプ識別子 | http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 | |||||
資源タイプ | departmental bulletin paper | |||||
著者 |
橋本, 裕藏
× 橋本, 裕藏× Hashimoto, Yuzo |
|||||
抄録(英) | ||||||
言語 | en | |||||
値 | This paper analyzes the "willfulness" requirement of criminal tax evasion in light of U.S. Supreme Court decisions. In Ratzlaf, 62 U.S.L.W. 4037(1994), the United States Supreme Court examined the elements that government must give proof in order to convict a taxpayer for "structure" transactions-i. e., breaking up a single transaction above the reporting threshold into two or more separate transactions-for the purpose of evading a financial institution's reporting requirement. This decision established a high standard for the "willfulness" requirement. In Murdock, 290 U.S. 389 (1933), the Court interpreted the term "willfully" as used in the criminal tax statutes generally to mean "an act done with a bad purpose," or with "an evil motive." In Bishop, 412 U.S. 346(1973), the Court described the term "willfully" as connoting "a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty," and did so with specific reference to the "bad faith or evil intent" language employed in Murdock. Later, in Pomponio,429 U.S. 10(1976) (per curiam), the jury was given an instruction on willfulness similar to the standard set forth in Bishop, and was additionally instructed that "good motive alone is never a defense where the act done or omitted is a crime." The defendants in this case were convicted. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the decision, concluding that the latter instruction was improper because the statute required a finding of bad purpose or evil motive. The Court then reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, stating that the Court of Appeals incorrectly assumed that the reference to evil motive in Bishop and prior cases requires proof of any motive other than an intentional violation of a known legal duty. The Court concluded that an additional instruction on good faith was unnecessary. Murdock - Bishop - Pomponio conclusively established that the standard for the statutory willfulness requirement is the voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty. In Cheek, 498 U.S. 192(1991), however, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and the District Court ruled that a good-faith misunderstanding of the law, if it is to negate willfulness, must be objectively reasonable. The Court vacated and remanded the judgment, because the standard would deprive defendants of the right to a trial by a jury. In Ratzlaf the Court concluded that Cheek's definition of willfulness, which previously had been applied in criminal tax evasion cases, was also the appropriate standard for determining the requisite intent for criminal violations of the currency reporting statutes. That means Cheek's willfulness standard may extend well beyond not only criminal tax fraud law, but also anti-structuring law. The Ratzlaf-Cheek standard may be applied to any other criminal transaction which is not mala in se but mala prohibita. This jurisprudence also should be introduced into the Japanese system. | |||||
書誌情報 |
放送大学研究年報 en : Journal of the University of the Air 巻 12, p. 57-73, 発行日 1995-03-30 |
|||||
ISSN | ||||||
収録物識別子タイプ | ISSN | |||||
収録物識別子 | 0911-4505 | |||||
書誌レコードID | ||||||
収録物識別子タイプ | NCID | |||||
収録物識別子 | AN10019636 |