In Sansone v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on whether a defendant could be convicted of tax evasion if there was no evidence to suggest that he had committed fraud. The case revolved around Joseph Sansone, who had sold his business and failed to report the income from this sale on his federal income tax return. He argued that he believed the money was not taxable because it was compensation for personal injuries sustained in connection with his employment termination. However, he was charged and convicted of willful tax evasion under section 7201 of the Internal Revenue Code. Sansone appealed against this conviction arguing that since there wasn't enough evidence to prove fraudulent intent (which is required for a charge under section 7201), then lesser charges should have been considered by jury instead. The Supreme Court agreed with him stating that when two statutory provisions aim at similar types of wrongdoing but one requires an additional element not needed by another, then failure to instruct jury about considering lesser offense can result in prejudice against defendant's rights - thus reversing Sansone’s conviction.

In the dissenting opinion for Sansone v. United States, Justice Goldberg argued that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses. He believed that there was a rational basis upon which the jury could have convicted Sansone of misdemeanor tax evasion instead of felony tax fraud, and thus it should have been presented as an option. The majority's decision not to allow this instruction undermined what he saw as a fundamental principle: that juries are responsible for determining both guilt and degree of culpability based on all legally relevant considerations. Furthermore, he disagreed with their interpretation of precedent cases like Berra v. United States and Spies v. United States; rather than establishing a strict dichotomy between felony and misdemeanor tax crimes, these cases merely clarified certain elements necessary for conviction under each statute but did not preclude overlap or lesser-included offenses.