October Term 2017 · Docket 16-1144

Does obstructing tax administration require a pending proceeding?

The dispute centers on whether the tax obstruction statute covers any interference with tax collection or only active obstruction of a specific, ongoing government proceeding.

Official caption
Marinello v. United States
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Hellman argued Congress did not create an all-purpose tax crime.

    He stated the statute borrows meaning from laws prohibiting obstruction of pending proceedings.

    Ms. Parker argued the government's reading does not solve the problems of overbreadth.

    She contended the statute does not swallow other misdemeanor provisions of the code.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests the scope of a federal tax crime. the side that brought the case argues the law targets only active obstruction of a pending proceeding. The government argues the law covers any interference with the tax code's administration.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 6, 2017.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the side that brought the case wants the conviction overturned because the statute requires a pending proceeding.

The government wants the conviction to stand because the statute covers any interference with tax administration.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the side that brought the case argues the statute borrows language from laws prohibiting obstruction of pending proceedings.

The government argues the statute covers any conduct that interferes with the due administration of the tax code.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Ginsburg asked what lawful conduct the government's reading would put at risk.

Justice Breyer asked if a gardener paying over six hundred dollars would be a lawbreaker.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The outcome defines the boundary between lawful tax compliance and criminal obstruction. It determines whether ordinary interactions with tax agencies can become felonies. This affects how citizens and businesses handle tax disputes and agency communications.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON