Cheek v. United States
Citation: 498 U.S. 192 (1991)
Facts
John Cheek, an airline pilot, stopped filing federal income tax returns and paying taxes, claiming he believed in good faith (based on tax protester arguments) that the tax laws were unconstitutional and that wages were not “income.” He was convicted of willful tax evasion. He argued his good-faith belief negated willfulness.
Issue
Does a taxpayer’s sincere but unreasonable belief that the tax laws are unconstitutional or do not apply to wages negate the “willfulness” element of federal tax crimes?
Holding
Yes (in part). A genuine good-faith belief — even an objectively unreasonable one — that one is not violating the tax law negates willfulness under federal tax statutes. However, a belief that the tax law is unconstitutional does not negate willfulness (that is a legal, not factual, mistake).
Rule
Willfulness in tax crimes: “Willfully” in federal tax statutes means a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty. A good-faith belief that one is not violating the law (factual mistake) negates willfulness, even if the belief is unreasonable. But a belief that the law itself is unconstitutional is not a defense — courts, not individuals, determine constitutionality.
Significance
- Classic case on the willfulness element in criminal law, particularly tax law
- The “known legal duty” requirement means honest belief in non-violation is a defense in tax cases (unlike most crimes)
- Tax law carves out an exception to the general rule that ignorance of the law is no excuse
- Illustrates the distinction between “mistake of fact” (negates mens rea in most crimes) and “mistake of law” (generally not a defense)
- Cheek was ultimately convicted on retrial — the jury rejected his claimed good-faith belief