In the 1930 case of United States v. Malcolm, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning federal income tax evasion. The defendant, Mr. Malcolm, was accused of willfully attempting to evade and defeat his income taxes by filing false and fraudulent returns for the years 1921 and 1922. He appealed his conviction from a lower court arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support it. The Supreme Court held that there was ample evidence presented at trial showing that Malcolm had substantial amounts of taxable income during those years which he did not report in his tax returns; thus affirming his conviction for tax evasion. The court stated that intent could be inferred from conduct aimed at misleading or concealing financial information from government authorities. This decision underscored the principle that taxpayers have an obligation to accurately report their earnings to avoid criminal liability under U.S law.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Malcolm case argued that the majority's decision to uphold Malcolm's conviction was incorrect because it violated his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. The dissenting justices believed that Malcolm had been compelled to testify against himself when he was forced to produce business records as evidence, which were then used by prosecutors to secure his conviction for tax evasion. They contended that this constituted a violation of his constitutional rights and therefore, they disagreed with the majority’s ruling upholding the conviction based on such evidence. Furthermore, they expressed concern about setting a precedent where individuals could be coerced into providing incriminating documents under threat of legal penalty.