So RICO is not needed to punish activists who violate other people's rights.
Still, some people have killed for this cause, so activists might reasonably worry that expressing such opinions would invite a RICO lawsuit.
What is significant about this dismissal is that the Supreme Court, using a restrictive RICO
interpretation, established a "participation" test to determine liability for violations under RICO
--a test since adopted by the lower courts and one that appears to shield CPAs from RICO
Focusing on the "origin and character of the claim" rationale generally applicable in determining the deductibility of legal fees, the court found that the taxpayer's legal fees were nondeductible personal expenditures; they were incurred solely to defend against the RICO
criminal prosecution, and not directly for the purpose of avoiding the forfeiture of property.
The district court granted a summary judgment in favor of Arthur Young on the RICO
claim, applying an established test that RICO
"requires some participation in the operation or management of the enterprise itself.
The dissenting opinion (by Justice David Souter, joined by Justice Byron White) argued Congress intended to apply RICO
broadly and include outside professionals within the law's scope.