Product details

By continuing to use our site you consent to the use of cookies as described in our privacy policy unless you have disabled them.
You can change your cookie settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them.
Compact case
Case from journal
-
Reference no. JIACS10-01-09
Published by: Allied Business Academies
Published in: "Journal of the International Academy for Case Studies", 2004
Length: 4 pages
Data source: Generalised experience

Abstract

When humor is effectively used the lessons learned often last much longer than otherwise. This case uses the line made famous by President Nixon to examine the transfer of knowledge between courts. We can visualize the plaintiff screaming, 'But I am not a crook. I was found innocent. How can they convict me of not paying taxes on drugs that I did not sell? I am not a crook.' The tax court did, in fact, convict the plaintiff on tax evasion charges even though in an earlier criminal trial he had been found not guilty on drug conspiracy charges. The primary question posed regards the results of the appeal. This case addresses the issue of double jeopardy in an interesting way. Mr Wanna was tried in criminal court on drug conspiracy charges and was found not guilty. However, in a subsequent trial for evasion of taxes he was found guilty of not paying taxes on the drugs the criminal court had found him not guilty of selling. In the second trial the government used additional witnesses that testified about the sale of drugs that did not testify in the criminal case. Among other issues, Mr Wanna's attorney claims that the second trial was more about the selling of drugs than about the avoidance of taxes and that the tax court, in essence, convicted him of selling drugs thus violating double jeopardy.

About

Abstract

When humor is effectively used the lessons learned often last much longer than otherwise. This case uses the line made famous by President Nixon to examine the transfer of knowledge between courts. We can visualize the plaintiff screaming, 'But I am not a crook. I was found innocent. How can they convict me of not paying taxes on drugs that I did not sell? I am not a crook.' The tax court did, in fact, convict the plaintiff on tax evasion charges even though in an earlier criminal trial he had been found not guilty on drug conspiracy charges. The primary question posed regards the results of the appeal. This case addresses the issue of double jeopardy in an interesting way. Mr Wanna was tried in criminal court on drug conspiracy charges and was found not guilty. However, in a subsequent trial for evasion of taxes he was found guilty of not paying taxes on the drugs the criminal court had found him not guilty of selling. In the second trial the government used additional witnesses that testified about the sale of drugs that did not testify in the criminal case. Among other issues, Mr Wanna's attorney claims that the second trial was more about the selling of drugs than about the avoidance of taxes and that the tax court, in essence, convicted him of selling drugs thus violating double jeopardy.

Related