Posted: May 19th, 2017

Later that same year, Grayson took a deduction for commuter expenses on his federal income return. He honestly (but erroneously) believed that the tax law allows such a deduction. He now fears he’ll be indicted under a law that makes it a federal crime to “willfully file a false tax return or underpay the tax due.” An indictment of Grayson under this statute would:

Later that same year, Grayson took a deduction for commuter expenses on his federal income return. He honestly (but erroneously) believed that the tax law allows such a deduction. He now fears he’ll be indicted under a law that makes it a federal crime to “willfully file a false tax return or underpay the tax due.” An indictment of Grayson under this statute would: a. Probably be dismissed under a widely used general principle that honest misunderstandings of law prevent violations from being considered “willful.” b. Probably be dismissed under a rule, practically unique to federal tax law, that an act is not considered a “willful” violation of law unless the defendant does the act with knowledge that the law does not allow it. c. Probably not be dismissed because, even though Grayson misunderstood the law, he did take the deduction “willfully.” d. Probably not be dismissed because ignorance of the law is never an excuse.