In the case of United States v. Shirey, 1958, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving federal income tax evasion. The defendant, Shirey, was convicted for willfully attempting to evade and defeat his income taxes by filing false and fraudulent returns for several years. On appeal to the Supreme Court, he argued that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to support his conviction. However, upon review of the record from lower courts including testimonies about large cash expenditures made during those years which were not reported in his tax returns as well as other circumstantial evidence indicating an understatement of taxable income; it became evident that there was enough proof supporting jury's verdict against him. The court also rejected Shirey’s argument regarding improper instructions given by trial judge about net worth method used in determining unreported taxable income stating that they were accurate descriptions of law and did not prejudice him. Therefore,the Supreme Court affirmed Shirey's conviction holding that sufficient evidence had been produced at trial to justify a finding beyond reasonable doubt that he had committed offenses charged against him under federal law relating to evasion or defeat of taxes due United States government.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Shirey, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold Shirey's conviction under a federal statute prohibiting interstate transportation of stolen goods was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Shirey knew the car he transported across state lines had been stolen, which is an essential element of this crime according to previous court rulings. They pointed out inconsistencies in testimonies and lack of concrete proof linking Shirey directly with knowledge about the theft or involvement in stealing activities. Moreover, they disagreed with majority’s interpretation of "reasonable inference" from circumstantial evidence as being equivalent to actual knowledge or intent required by law for conviction under this statute.