Conforte v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Headline: Fugitive tax defendant blocked from continuing civil appeal as Justice Rehnquist denies stay, upholding rule that fugitives must surrender within a set deadline to pursue appeals.
Holding: This field is not part of the required schema and should be ignored.
- Blocks a fugitive from continuing a civil tax appeal without surrendering to authorities.
- Reinforces lower‑court practice limiting appeals by defendants who avoid custody.
- Sets a high bar for last‑minute emergency stays without strong explanations.
Summary
Background
The dispute began after the IRS assessed additional taxes and penalties for 1973–1976 against a husband and wife who reported only a "net income" on their returns, claiming details would be incriminating. The Tax Court upheld the IRS’s calculated deficiencies. On appeal to the Ninth Circuit, the court affirmed in part, reversed as to the wife, and dismissed the husband’s appeal because he was a fugitive convicted of attempting to evade federal employment taxes. The appeals court relied on prior decisions and gave the husband 56 days to surrender to the District Court of Nevada to seek reinstatement of his appeal.
Reasoning
The key question here was whether a last‑minute stay should pause the 56‑day deadline so the husband could file a petition for review in this Court. Justice Rehnquist (as Circuit Justice) denied the emergency stay. He explained that past rulings say a fugitive is generally not entitled to use the Court’s resources, that the husband offered no explanation for filing at the last moment, and that he had not sought relief first from the Court of Appeals. Rehnquist also concluded there was not a reasonable possibility that four Justices would vote to hear the case, so a stay was not appropriate.
Real world impact
The denial leaves the appeals court’s dismissal intact unless the defendant later surrenders and obtains further court action. The ruling reinforces lower‑court practice limiting appeals by defendants who avoid custody and shows how high the bar is for emergency stays without strong reasons. This decision is a procedural denial, not a final ruling on the underlying tax merits.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?