In the 1947 case of Mogall v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning income tax evasion. The defendant, Mogall, had been convicted for willfully attempting to evade and defeat his wife's income tax by filing false and fraudulent returns. He appealed this conviction arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support it. However, the Supreme Court upheld his conviction stating that there was enough circumstantial evidence presented at trial which could lead a reasonable mind to conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This included proof of substantial understatement of gross receipts from their business in their joint return filed with knowledge or notice thereof by him; failure to keep adequate records; consistent under-reporting over several years; and living expenses greatly exceeding reported net income.

In the dissenting opinion for Mogall v. United States, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on an indictment that did not specify which of two possible statutes were violated was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed this lack of specificity denied the defendant his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him, as required by Sixth Amendment. They further contended that each statute involved different elements and penalties, thus making them distinct offenses rather than merely different means of committing same offense. Therefore, they concluded that failure to specify under which law defendant was being prosecuted constituted a fatal defect in indictment.