# Opposition Brief — Angelini v. United States > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385602_0770%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Opposition Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1965 - **Citation:** 382 U.S. 838 ## Text Sn the Hupreme asin of the Wnited sin : " OcToBER TERM, 1965 7 No. 377 DonaLD ANGELINI, PETITIONER v. UnrtTep StaTEs oF: AMERICA — ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CHRTIORARI TO THE UNITED | STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH OIROUIT BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION a _ OPINION BELOW —~_ ‘The opinion of the court of appeals (Pet. App. la-fa). is not po reported. JURISDICTION . "The judgment of the court of appeals was entered .on May 20, 1965. A petition for rehearing was de- — nied on June 21, 1965. The petition for a writ of-- certiorari was filed on July 21, 1965. The jurisdic- tion of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. bene vi QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the occupation tax and registration provisions of the federal: wagering tax laws violate. the privilege against self-incrimination. : ‘ (1) | ee : * ae Whether willful failure to file a wagering = return is an offense.. - . 3. Whether wagering ‘eeoridp were properly ad- mitted into evidence when the person from whom they had been obtained was not called as a ‘witness. : 5 a STATEMENT ne A two-count indictment returned in the N orthern _ District of Illinois charged petitioner with engaging in the’ wagering business between August 14, 1963, . - and August 24, 1963, in violation of section 7203 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.8.C.. 7203. Count 1 charged: that petitioner willfully \failed to pay the special $50 tax on engaging in the business of wager- ing. Count 2 charged that he : : register and file a wagering tax return (A. 7-8). ‘\ Petitioner: was found. guilty. He was sentenced to - ‘imprisonment for 60 days and fined $2500 on count 1, and was placed on probation for a period of three - years on count 2. (A. 47-48.) - ) At. various times in August: 1963, petitioner was watched by federal agents at a Cicero, Lllinois, race track. He was observed exchanging money with Joe ““Red”’ Altiere and other named persons (A. 17-18; 21, 23-25, 28) who had accepted wagers on the horse = Traces (A. 25-27, 29-31), and making notations “_ he talked with these individuals (A. 17-18, 25). nm one océasion a man handed petitioner $20 and = 3 “$20 on Quarter Chief,”’ and on another occasion a _ man: gave him $15 and said ‘Chapter . Rhythm.”’. - These were horses which ran in the next races (A. 12-13). Petitioner was nevér seen making a bet at oe — A “ 3 the pari-mutuel windows (A. 14, 20). On August 24, petitioner and Joe Altiere were arrested.at the track. ~ A search of petitioner’s person at that time revealed _ that he had on his person various papers and $8,674:00 > in currency (A. 15-16). An- expert described the papers as ‘recap sheets relating to horseracing,’’ list- ' ing the-winnings on horses at:the end of particular: races (A. 34-35). The recap sheets showed exactly the same profits and losses for the first five races at the race track on August 24 as records seized from Al- tiere at the same’ time (A. 36-38). Petitioner had not paid the occupation tax or registered or filed the — ‘required return for’ the tax year ending J une “30, 1964 (A. 10). : 1. In Lewis ¥ v. United States, 348 U.S. 419, this Court .rejectéd the argument that the oceupational tax and registration provisions of the federal. wager- ing tax laws violated the privilege agamst self-in- crimination because petitioner was subject to a fed- _ eral’ (District of Columbia) statute — wagering ‘ acrime. It stated (pp. 422-423) : Tf he: does not pay the ssepatian’ tax, pro- ceeds to accept wagers, and is prosecuted there- fore, asin this case, he cannot be compelled to > testify ca may claim his privilege. - The only * compulsion under the Act is that requiring the decision which would-be gamblers must make at the threshold. They may have to givé up gam- bling, but there is no constitutional right to. gamble. If they elect to wager, though it’ be. unlawful,’they must pay the tax. , ~ pagan 0° 8 - makes no differense that herd patitioner is unio - not to a District of Columbia, ‘but ‘to other statutes . making wagering an offense. See, ¢.., United States . |. v, Zigao, 338 °F. 24577, 580 (C.A. 7). , 2. Under Count 2, petitioner was aaa with = eA willfully failing to register and file a wagering tax _ return. Section 7203 of the. Internal Revenue: * - Code - -provides that any person who is required to | - pay a tax or ‘‘by regulations made under authority thereof. to make a return” and willfully fails to do so is guilty of a misdemeanor, and section 6011(a) =, -- provides. that: the Secretary of ‘the Treasury may by regulation require that any person who is liable for a tax shall make a return.. Therefore, ‘contrary to . petitioner’s contention, the Secretary was authorized. — Ni promulgate a regulation. requiring a wagering tax return. Such regulation is also consistent with sec- "tion 4412 ‘of the Code, ‘which ‘provides that every - person required to pay the wagering — tax must register. x! | 3. The records seized bins Ie oe Altiere were prop- erly admitted into’ evidence without his testimony. -These records corresponded exactly with petitioner’s recap sheets ; they \showed the same winnings and — " losses-for the first five races at the race track. This similarity, plus the fact that petitioner had been ob-. served dealing with Altiere, provided sufficient founda- tion for aie introduction. tes , | 5 CONCLUSION - For the ‘foregoing reasons, it is Seapedttany sub- mitted that the petition for a writ of certiorari ‘ should be’ denied. " Ravan S. finite Acting Solicitor General. Frep M. Vinson, Jr.) Assistant Attorney General. BEATRICE ROSENBERG, | Siwyey M. GLazer, Peg , . Attorneys. August 1965. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385602_0770%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.