Cheek v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 · Criminal Law

498 U.S. 192 (1991)

Updated August 1, 2026

Criminal Lawmistake of lawwillfulnesscriminal tax offensesgood-faith misunderstandingknown legal dutytax evasionfailure to file

Facts

Cheek, an airline pilot, filed federal income tax returns through 1979 but then stopped filing returns, claimed numerous withholding allowances, and asserted exempt status on W-4 forms even though his income exceeded the filing threshold. At trial, he testified that after attending seminars and studying materials critical of the federal tax system, he sincerely believed that wages were not income, that he was not a taxpayer required to file returns or pay taxes, and that the tax laws were being unconstitutionally enforced against him. The district court instructed the jury that only an objectively reasonable good-faith misunderstanding of the law would negate willfulness and also told the jury not to consider views that the tax laws were unconstitutional. The jury convicted him on all counts.

Issue

In prosecutions under 26 U. S. C. §§ 7201 and 7203, does the statutory requirement of willfulness allow a defendant's actual good-faith misunderstanding of the tax law to negate willfulness even if that misunderstanding is objectively unreasonable? Also, may a defendant's belief that the tax laws are unconstitutional negate willfulness?

Rule

For federal criminal tax offenses, willfulness requires proof that the law imposed a duty on the defendant, that the defendant knew of that duty, and that he voluntarily and intentionally violated it. A defendant's actual good-faith misunderstanding of the tax law, or actual good-faith belief that he is not violating the tax law, negates willfulness whether or not the belief is objectively reasonable; however, a defendant's views about the validity or constitutionality of the tax statutes are irrelevant to willfulness and do not provide a defense.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Nora Patel stopped filing federal income tax returns after reading self-published materials claiming that compensation for labor is not taxable income under the Internal Revenue Code. She earned well above the filing threshold and is prosecuted under a federal statute requiring willful failure to file.

At trial, Nora requests an instruction that the jury may acquit if it finds she actually, in good faith, believed her wages were not income, even if that belief was irrational. Should the court give the instruction?

Explanation. Willfulness in federal criminal tax cases means the voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty. If the defendant actually and in good faith misunderstood what the tax law required, that can negate the knowledge component of willfulness whether or not the belief was objectively reasonable. The jury, not the judge, evaluates whether the claimed belief was genuine.