Midrash for Makkot 30:3
א"ל מאי קא אמרת קיים פטור לא קיים חייב ביטל חייב לא ביטל פטור תני ביטלו ולא ביטלו ורבי שמעון בן לקיש אומר קיימו ולא קיימו
[Rebbi Yochanon] asked him, What are you saying? Either fulfilling will exempt it him and not fulfilling it will implicate him, or nulifying it will imp[licte him and not nullifying it wil expemt him. Rather teach, Bitlo v'lo Bitlo [he nullified it and he did not nullify it]. And Rebbi Shimon ben Lakash said [to Teach] Kimu v'lo Kimu [he fulfilled it and he did not fulfill it].
Sifrei Devarim
R. Yossi says: I might think that there was liability only for (eating) tevel (untithed produce) from which nothing had been tithed. Whence is it derived (that there is liability) if terumah had been taken from it, but not first-tithe; if first-tithe had been taken, but not second-tithe; if second-tithe had been taken, but not poor-tithe? From (Ibid. 17) "You shall not be able to eat in your gates," and, elsewhere, (Ibid. 26:12) "And they shall eat it in your gates and be sated." Just as there, poor-tithe (is being referred to), so, here.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy