United States v. Murdock

Background

A man who filed federal income tax returns for 1927 and 1928 claimed $12,000 deductions each year and was asked by a revenue agent to name the recipients. He refused, saying answering might incriminate or degrade him. He was indicted for willfully failing to supply information, then filed a special plea saying he would have been forced to incriminate himself and included a transcript of the questions and answers. The district court overruled the government’s objections to the plea and entered judgment discharging him, which would bar further prosecution.

Reasoning

The Court looked at the transcript and the statute making it a misdemeanor to willfully fail to supply tax information. It found the defendant repeatedly relied on fear of state-law prosecution rather than any federal prosecution. The Court explained that the privilege against self-incrimination must be actually claimed for federal protection to apply, and that a claim based solely on state-law fears does not defeat federal tax investigations. Because the defendant did not invoke protection against federal prosecution, his special plea was without merit and leave to file it should have been denied.

Real world impact

The ruling reverses the discharge and allows the federal prosecution and tax inquiry to continue. It clarifies that fears of state prosecution will not automatically let a person refuse to answer federal tax questions, and it rejects using a special plea to short-circuit a trial on routine defenses.