115

Opinion of the Court.

143); or (3) local prices are fixed by the use of interstate commercial transactions (e. g., United States v. Frankfort Distilleries, 324 U. S. 293); or (4) the discriminatory sales are to purchasers who compete in interstate commerce (e. g., Corn Products Refining Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 324 U. S. 726); or (5) interstate commerce is in some other way used to destroy competition or is injured or impaired as a result of unlawful acts.

We think that the practices in the present case are also included within the scope of the antitrust laws. We have here an interstate industry increasing its domain through outlawed competitive practices. The victim, to be sure, is only a local merchant; and no interstate transactions are used to destroy him. But the beneficiary is an interstate business; the treasury used to finance the warfare is drawn from interstate, as well as local, sources which include not only respondent but also a group of interlocked companies engaged in the same line of business; and the prices on the interstate sales, both by respondent and by the other Mead companies, are kept high while the local prices are lowered. If this method of competition were approved, the pattern for growth of monopoly would be simple. As long as the price warfare was strictly intrastate, interstate business could grow expand with impunity at the expense of local merchants. The competitive advantage would then be with the interstate combines, not by reason of their skills or efficiency but because of their strength and ability to wage price wars. The profits made in interstate activities would underwrite the losses of local price-cutting campaigns. No instrumentality of interstate commerce would be used to destroy the local merchant and expand the domain of the combine. But the opportunities afforded by interstate commerce would be employed to injure local trade. Congress, as guardian of the Commerce Clause, certainly

and

Opinion of the Court.

348 U.S.

has power to say that those advantages shall not attach to the privilege of doing an interstate business.

This type of price cutting was held to be "foreign to any legitimate commercial competition" even prior to the Robinson-Patman Act. See Porto Rican American Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co., 30 F. 2d 234, 237. It seems plain to us that Congress went at least that far in the Robinson-Patman Act. As we have shown, the facts charged and found read upon the words of the statute. And the history of the Act shows it was designed to have the reach now claimed for it by petitioner. Congressman Utterback, manager of the bill in the House, included this type of case in the price cutting that he claimed was outlawed:

"Where, however, a manufacturer sells to customers both within the State and beyond the State, he may not favor either to the disadvantage of the other; he may not use the privilege of interstate commerce to the injury of his local trade, nor may he favor his local trade to the injury of his interstate trade. The Federal power to regulate interstate commerce is the power both to limit its employment to the injury of business within the State, and to protect interstate commerce itself from injury by influences within the State." 80 Cong. Rec. 9417.

It is, we think, clear that Congress by the Clayton Act and Robinson-Patman Act barred the use of interstate business to destroy local business, outlawing the price cutting employed by respondent.

Other points are pressed on us by respondent in support of the judgment of the Court of Appeals. But we have examined them and found them not substantial. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and affirm the judgment of the District Court.

So ordered.

Syllabus.

HOLLAND ET UX. v. UNITED STATES.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT.

No. 37. Argued October 20-21, 1954.-Decided December 6, 1954. With the Government using the "net worth" method of proof, petitioners were convicted under § 145 of the Internal Revenue Code of a willful attempt to evade their income taxes for the year 1948. The Government's computation showed an increase of $32,000 in their net worth during 1948, for which they reported only $10,211 as taxable income. Petitioners claimed that the Government failed to include in its opening net worth figure $104,000 of currency accumulated before 1933. The Government introduced no direct evidence to dispute this claim but relied on the inference that anyone who had $104,000 in cash would not have undergone the hardships and privations shown to have been endured by petitioners during the 1926-1940 period. The evidence further indicated that improvements to a hotel and other assets acquired during the 1946-1948 period were bought in installments, as if out of earnings rather than accumulated cash; and petitioners' income tax returns as far back as 1913 showed that their income was insufficient to enable them to save any appreciable amount of money. There was independent evidence of a likely source of unreported taxable income which the jury could reasonably find to be the source of the increase in petitioners' net worth and independent evidence from which the jury could reasonably infer willfulness. Held: The judgment is affirmed. Pp. 124-141.

1. While it cannot be said that the dangers for the innocent inherent in the net worth method of proof (which are summarized in the opinion) foreclose its use, they do require the exercise of great care and restraint. Pp. 125–129.

2. Trial courts should approach such cases in the full realization that the taxpayer may be ensnared in a system which, though difficult for the prosecution to utilize, is equally hard for the defendant to refute. P. 129.

3. Charges to the jury should be especially clear and should include, in addition to the formal instructions, a summary of the nature of the net worth method, the assumptions on which it rests, and the inferences available both for and against the accused. P. 129.

318107 - 55 - 14

4. In reviewing such cases, appellate courts should bear constantly in mind the difficulties that arise when circumstantial evidence as to guilt is the chief weapon of a method that is itself only an approximation. P. 129.

5. Section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code, expressly limiting the authority of the Government to deviate from the taxpayer's method of accounting, does not confine the net worth method of proof to situations where the taxpayer has no books or where his books are inadequate. Pp. 130-132.

6. The net worth technique used in this case was not a method of accounting different from the one employed by petitioners, and its use did not violate § 41 of the Internal Revenue Code. Pp. 131132.

7. An essential condition in such cases is the establishment, with reasonable certainty, of an opening net worth, to serve as a starting point from which to calculate future increases in the taxpayer's assets. P. 132.

8. In this case, the Government's evidence fully justified the jury's conclusion that petitioners did not have the $113,000 in currency and stocks which they claimed to have had at the beginning of 1946. Pp. 132-135.

9. When the taxpayer offers relevant explanations inconsistent with guilt, failure of the Government to investigate them might result in serious injustice; its failure to offer proof negating them would adversely affect the cogency of proof based on the circumstantial inferences of the net worth computation; and the trial judge may consider the taxpayer's explanations as true and the Government's case insufficient to go to the jury. Pp. 135-136.

10. In this case, the distant incidents relied on by petitioners and not investigated by the Government were so remote in time and in their connection with subsequent events proved by the Government that, whatever petitioners' net worth in 1933, it appeared by convincing evidence that, on January 1, 1946, they had only such assets as the Government credited to them in its opening net worth statement. P. 136.

11. A requisite to the use of the net worth method of proof is evidence supporting the inference that the increases in the defendant's net worth are attributable to currently taxable income. P. 137.

12. Where the taxpayer offers no relevant explanation of the increases in his net worth, however, the Government is not re

quired to negate every possible source of nontaxable income-a matter peculiarly within the knowledge of the taxpayer. P. 138. 13. In this case, there was proof of a likely source of unreported taxable income, which was adequate to support the inference that the increase in net worth was attributable to currently taxable income even though the Government's proof did not negate all possible nontaxable sources of the alleged net worth increase, such as gifts, loans, inheritances, etc. Pp. 137-138.

14. The settled standards regarding the burden of proof in criminal cases are applicable to net worth cases. The Government must prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, though not to a mathematical certainty. Once the Government has established its case, the defendant remains quiet at his peril. Pp. 138-139.

15. In net worth cases, willfulness is a necessary element for conviction. It must be proven by independent evidence and it cannot be inferred from a mere understatement of income. P. 139.

16. In this case, the Government's evidence of a consistent pattern of underreporting large amounts of income, and of petitioners' failure to include all their income in their books and records, was sufficient, on proper submission, to support the jury's inference of willfulness. P. 139.

17. In this case, the instructions to the jury were not so erroneous and misleading as to constitute grounds for reversal. Pp. 139-141. 209 F.2d 516, affirmed.

Petitioners were convicted under § 145 of the Internal Revenue Code of an attempt to evade their income taxes. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 209 F. 2d 516. This Court granted certiorari. 347 U. S. 1008. Affirmed, p. 141.

Sumner M. Redstone and Peyton Ford argued the cause for petitioners. With them on the brief were H. D. Reed and Frank A. Bruno.

Marvin E. Frankel argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Sobeloff, Assistant Attorney General Holland, Ellis N. Slack and Joseph F. Goetten.