In the United States v. Alpers case of 1949, the Supreme Court examined whether a person could be convicted for both conspiracy to defraud and evasion of income tax based on the same set of facts. The defendant, Alpers, was charged with conspiring to defraud the U.S by evading taxes and also separately charged with evasion of income tax itself. He argued that this constituted double jeopardy - being tried twice for essentially the same crime - which is prohibited under Fifth Amendment rights. The court ruled against Alpers stating that each offense required proof of different elements; therefore they were not in fact identical offenses even though they arose from similar circumstances. Conspiracy to defraud requires an agreement between two or more people whereas evasion can be committed by one individual alone without any agreement involved. Furthermore, it was held that Congress intended these as separate offenses when drafting legislation due to their distinct nature and societal harm caused by each act independently. Therefore, conviction on both counts did not violate constitutional protection against double jeopardy.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Alpers, Justice Jackson disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Section 145(b) of the Internal Revenue Code. He argued that this section was not intended to be a catch-all provision for all attempts to evade or defeat taxes but rather specifically targeted those who filed false and fraudulent returns with intent to evade tax assessment. According to him, applying it broadly would render other specific provisions in the code redundant and meaningless. Furthermore, he contended that interpreting "attempt" as any act contributing towards evasion could potentially criminalize innocent acts if they indirectly lead to tax evasion later on without one's knowledge or intention - an outcome he believed Congress did not intend when drafting this law.