United States v. Shermetaro, 625 F.2d 104 (6th Cir. 1980); Mertens, The Law of Federal Income Taxation 14, Ch. 55A.10 (1988). And of course numerous cases have recognized that more detailed statutes criminalizing substantive acts, enacted after § 371, do not impliedly repeal or preempt the prohibition on conspiracy to commit those acts contained in § 371. United States v. Little, 753 F.2d 1420 (9th Cir. 1984); United States v. Zang, 703 F.2d 1186 (10th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 828, 104 S.Ct. 103, 78 L.Ed.2d 107 (1983); United States v. Tarnopol, 561 F.2d 466 (3d Cir. 1983); United States v. Bazzell, 187 F.2d 878 (7th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Lasby v. United States, 342 U.S. 849, 72 S.Ct. 73, 96 L.Ed. 641 reh'g denied, 342 U.S. 889, 72 S.Ct. 171, 96 L.Ed. 667 (1951); Burton v. United States, 175 F.2d 960 (5th Cir. 1949); United States v. Pezzati, 160 F. Supp. 787 (D.Colo. 1958).

" This Court said in United States v. Bazzell, 7 Cir., 1951, 187 F.2d 878, 884: "As to the argument that the verdict is inconsistent, it will be enough to say that where a defendant is charged by two or more counts in an indictment, consistency between the verdicts on the several counts is not necessary. Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390, 52 S.Ct. 189, 76 L.Ed. 356; United States v. Denny, 7 Cir., 165 F.2d 668; and United States v. Coplon, 2 Cir., 185 F.2d 629, 633, 28 A.L.R.2d 1041. A verdict of acquittal on one count does not invalidate a verdict of guilty on another count, although the same evidence is offered in support of each. Garrison v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 149 F.2d 844, 845.

Whatever intimations defendant envisages this Court as having made in United States v. Moloney, 7 Cir., 1952, 200 F.2d 344, 346, the case is unavailing here on Morris' contention that the jury returned inconsistent verdicts. We recognized the value of United States v. Bazzell, 7 Cir., 1951, 187 F.2d 878, in our Moloney opinion and apply it here. Careful consideration of those remarks, challenged here by defendant, made to jurors by the district judge during the voir dire examinations has shown us there is absent any sound reason for overturning the jury's verdict.

When a single conspiracy is charged, the trial court has jurisdiction if any overt act in furtherance of that conspiracy is done within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, even though other overt acts be alleged and proved to have occurred elsewhere. Hyde v. United States, 225 U.S. 347, 32 S.Ct. 793, 56 L.Ed. 1114; United States v. Cohen, 3 Cir., 197 F.2d 26; United States v. Bazzell, 7 Cir., 187 F.2d 878; Ladner v. United States, 5 Cir., 168 F.2d 771; Kott v. United States, 5 Cir., 163 F.2d 984. Hence, there is no merit in appellants' attack on the jurisdiction of the trial court. Since the indictment alleged one grand conspiracy, with many overt acts occurring in the Northern District of Alabama, we think the trial court did not err in admitting the Government's evidence concerning the conditions and events in Tennessee.