208 F.2d 854 (8th Cir. 1954), 14711, Mitchell v. United States

Docket Nº:14711.
Citation:208 F.2d 854
Party Name:MITCHELL v. UNITED STATES.
Case Date:January 06, 1954
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 854

208 F.2d 854 (8th Cir. 1954)

MITCHELL

v.

UNITED STATES.

No. 14711.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

January 6, 1954

Rehearing Denied Feb. 8, 1954.

Howard F. Sachs, Kansas City, Mo. (Phineas Rosenberg, Harlow B. King and Morelock, Hoskins & King, Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for appellant.

Page 855

Joseph L. Flynn, Asst. U.S. Atty., St. Joseph, Mo. (Edward L. Scheufler, U.S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for appellee.

Before GARDNER, Chief Judge and STONE and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

GARDNER, Chief Judge.

Appellant was indicted, tried and convicted on four counts of an indictment which charged him with attempting to defeat and evade a large part of his income taxes for the years 1945 through 1948. The first count of the indictment charged, 'That on or about the 14th day of March, 1946, in the Western Division of the Western District of Missouri, David H. Mitchell, of Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri, did wilfully and knowingly attempt to defeat and evade a large part of the income tax due and owing by him to the United States of America for the calendar year 1945, by filing and causing to be filed with the Collector of Internal Revenue for the 6th Internal Revenue Collection District of Missouri, at Kansas City, Missouri, a false and fraudulent income tax return wherein he stated that his net income for said calendar year was the sum of $18, 297.52 and that the amount of tax due and owing thereon was the sum of $5, 882.69, as he then and there well knew, his net income for the said calendar year was the sum of $77, 221.17, upon which said net income he owed to the United States of America an income tax of $48, 650.79.' The other counts of the indictment are identical in phraseology except as to the dates involved and the amounts of income and alleged amounts of taxes due. The indictment in fact contained six counts but Appellant was acquitted on Counts V and VI and these counts will require no further reference. We shall hereinafter refer to Appellant as Defendant.

It was the contention of the government and it introduced evidence tending to prove that for the year 1945 Defendant's income was approximately $77, 000, whereas he reported an income of only $18, 000; that for the year 1946 his income was approximately $57, 000, whereas he reported an income of only $44, 000; that for the year 1947 his income was approximately $69, 000, whereas he reported an income of only $22, 000; and that for the year 1948 his income was approximately $67, 000, whereas he reported an income of only $43, 000.

The government presented its proof under the so-called net-worth-plus-living-expenses method and also offered evidence as to specific omitted income. The government's proof under the net worth method intended to sustain the charges contained in the four counts of the indictment upon which Defendant was convicted. In addition to this proof the government produced evidence that Defendant during each of the years involved received certain substantial cash income which was not reported by him in his income tax returns. These items amount in the aggregate for each of the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP