Canaday v. United States
Citation | 354 F.2d 849 |
Decision Date | 21 January 1966 |
Docket Number | No. 17959.,17959. |
Parties | William Merle CANADAY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Kenneth K. Simon, Kansas City, Mo., for appellant. Robert G. Duncan, and Kenneth Cohn, Kansas City, Mo., with him on the brief.
F. Russell Millin, U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., for appellee. Calvin K. Hamilton and Bruce C. Houdek, Asst. U. S. Attys., Kansas City, Mo., with him on the brief.
Before VAN OOSTERHOUT, MATTHES and MEHAFFY, Circuit Judges.
William Merle Canaday was indicted, in five counts, for evasion of federal income taxes for the calendar years 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1960, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201, Internal Revenue Code of 1954.1 He was convicted by a jury on Counts III and IV (1959 and 1960) and acquitted on Counts I and II (1957 and 1958). The court, Honorable Floyd R. Gibson, suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for a period of three years. From the judgment of conviction, defendant has appealed.
The defendant advances four contentions of alleged procedural errors as grounds for a new trial, and also asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's finding of wilful intent and that the jury's verdict was inconsistent.
Two principles of importance here are axiomatic. In resolving the question of the sufficiency of the evidence, we must consider it in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict of the jury. National Dairy Products Corp. v. United States, 350 F.2d 321, 325 (8 Cir. 1965); Coil v. United States, 343 F.2d 573, 575 (8 Cir. 1965), and cases cited. Whether the accused, in a tax evasion prosecution, was motivated by wilful intent ordinarily presents a fact issue to be resolved by the jury. Fowler v. United States, 352 F.2d 100, 110 (8 Cir. 1965); Lessmann v. C. I. R., 327 F.2d 990, 993 (8 Cir. 1964); United States v. Vardine, 305 F.2d 60, 63 (2 Cir. 1962).
Defendant's theory is that the evidence was wholly insufficient to prove that he failed to report a "substantial part of his income and that consequently, due to this failure, the government did not meet and establish the element of willfulness."2 (Emphasis supplied). Defendant characterizes this prosecution as a "small peanut-type case" and, seemingly, would have us overturn the finding of the jury and the judgment of the court solely on the rationale that the unreported taxable income was not, in defendant's opinion, a substantial amount.
The word "substantial", as applicable here, is necessarily a relative term and not susceptible of an exact meaning. This concept is implicit in United States v. Nunan, 236 F.2d 576, at p. 585 (2 Cir. 1956), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 912, 77 S.Ct. 661, 1 L.Ed.2d 665, where the court, in pertinent part, stated:
Defendant, a married man during most of the time relevant to the prosecution,3 was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Police Department of Kansas City, Missouri, at the time the indictment was filed (March 12, 1964). Thereafter, defendant was suspended from the police force.
Defendant's records, consisting principally of cancelled checks, bank deposit slips, bank statements, mortgage documents, and similar papers, did not adequately reflect his purchases and expenditures. Therefore, the Government used the net worth-expenditures method to reconstruct and prove the amount of defendant's unreported income. Everett W. Trost, the special agent assigned the task of checking into the matter, made an intensive and exhaustive investigation of all relevant transactions of the defendant to determine: (1) whether there had been an increase in his net worth from December 31, 1955; (2) the amount of such increase; (3) the amount of expenditures; and, (4) the correct amount of defendant's taxable income for each of the years covered by the indictment.
It has authoritatively been pronounced that, Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 135-136, 75 S.Ct. 127, 135, 99 L.Ed. 150 (1954). See also, United States v. Vardine, supra, 305 F.2d at p. 63. The evidence shows that, in the course of this investigation, Agent Trost did track down all relevant leads furnished by the defendant which might have explained his net worth bulge and established his innocence.
A substantial part of the key evidence was submitted to the jury in the form of detailed stipulations. Thus, it was stipulated that defendant's net pay, or "take home pay", (gross salary, less all payroll deductions), as a member of the police force, was $1,686.09 in 1946, and that his salary increased until, in 1956, his net pay was $3,465.61. For the indictment years, 1957 through 1960, inclusive, defendant's net pay was $3,457.40, $4,525.30, $5,471.40, and $5,756.15, respectively; a total of $19,210.25. Included in the stipulation is a detailed summary of defendant's expenditures for the years 1956 through 1960, which shows that during those years defendant expended a total of $37,616.97 by currency, $12,638.52 by checks, $12,311.59 by other means; a total of $62,567.08.4
The results of the investigation by Agent Trost were summarized by Government exhibits introduced into evidence. These exhibits show that the net worth of defendant on December 31, 1955 (the starting point), 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1960, was: $7,995.98, $11,362.76, $14,251.81, $20,624.79, $23,900.18, $28,457.16, respectively. An increase in the net worth of defendant for each of the same years is also reflected by these exhibits. The amounts of taxable income shown by the net worth-expenditure statement as compared to the amounts of income reported by the defendant in his income tax returns, are:
Per Net Worth-Expenditure Year Computation Per Return Difference 1956 ............... $ 7,476.19 $ 2,863.77 $ 4,612.42 1957 ............... 8,716.35 2,602.31 6,114.04 1958 ............... 9,774.33 4,477.49 5,296.84 1959 ............... 10,499.47 4,815.83 5,683.64 1960 ............... 10,302.92 5,290.05 5,012.87 __________ __________ __________ Total .......... $46,769.26 $20,049.45 $26,719.81
Thus, according to the Government's computation, the defendant reported approximately 39% of his taxable income in 1956, approximately 30% in 1957, approximately 46% in 1958, approximately 46% in 1959, and approximately 51% in 1960.
In corroboration of the net worth-expenditures statement and other Government exhibits, the Government also submitted a flow of funds schedule, reflecting all of the money received by defendant from listed sources and all of defendant's expenditures covered by the investigation. This schedule reveals the following:
Excess of Funds Expended Funds Funds Over Funds Year Received Expended Received 1956 ......... $10,475.33 $15,210.67 $ 4,735.34 1957 ......... 9,342.27 15,113.17 5,770.90 1958 ......... 5,626.71 10,908.77 5,282.06 1959 ......... 10,517.50 16,011.70 5,494.20 1960 ......... 9,608.33 14,685.46 5,077.13 __________ __________ __________ Total ...... $45,570.14 $71,929.77 $26,359.63
Attesting to the accuracy of the net worth-expenditures statement is the difference of only $360.18 between the unreported income, as shown by that statement ($26,719.81), and the amount of expenditures in excess of funds received ($26,359.63), as shown by the flow of funds schedule.
The income omitted from defendant's income tax returns for the indictment years is reflected by a difference in his tax liability as follows:
Amount Amount Year Reported Recomputed Difference 1957 ......... $ 520.46 $ 1,866.25 $ 1,345.79 1958 ......... 905.05 2,141.33 1,236.28 1959 ......... 979.48 2,329.86 1,350.38 1960 ......... 1,083.82 2,278.76 1,194.94 __________ __________ __________ Total ..... $ 3,488.81 $ 8,616.20 $ 5,127.395
Defendant does not challenge the accuracy of the figures upon which the various computations are based or the validity of the results of the computations. Indeed, as previously mentioned, defendant stipulated to many of the pertinent items. Aside from proving his good reputation, defendant's principal...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Willis
...Diversified test in the income tax return preparation context is consistent with the Circuit's earlier opinion in Canaday v. United States, 354 F.2d 849, 854 (8th Cir.1966) (attorney-client privilege inapplicable because lawyer who filled out client's tax return "acted not as a lawyer but m......
-
Smith v. State
...v. United States, 386 F.2d 132 (9th Cir. 1967), Cert. denied, 390 U.S. 951, 88 S.Ct. 1042, 19 L.Ed.2d 1142 (1968); Canaday v. United States, 354 F.2d 849 (8th Cir. 1966). Post-Katz authority upholding the use of mail covers is limited. See United States v. Leonard, 524 F.2d 1076 (2d Cir. 19......
-
United States v. Nobles 8212 634
...States v. Smaldone, 484 F.2d 311 (CA10 1973), cert. den., 415 U.S. 915, 94 S.Ct. 1411, 39 L.Ed.2d 469 (1974). Cf. Canaday v. United States, 354 F.2d 849 (CA8 1966). In State v. Bowen, 104 Ariz. 138, 449 P.2d 603 (1969), the court reached a contrary result under state law. 16. A conflict aro......
-
Augenblick v. United States
...judge's refusal to hold an in camera examination of a memorandum to determine its status under the Jencks Act, Canaday v. United States, 354 F.2d 849, 859 (C.A.8, 1966). That court stressed the Government agent's undisputed testimony that the memorandum was drafted from information containe......
-
Tax violations.
...government need only prove amount was substantial and need not prove exact amount of deficiency). (55.) See Canaday v. United States, 354 F.2d 849, 851-52 (8th Cir. 1966) (explaining that substantial deficiency is determined based on all the attendant circumstances of the particular case) (......
-
Tax violations.
...government need only prove amount was substantial and need not prove exact amount of deficiency). (55.) See Canaday v. United States, 354 F.2d 849, 851-52 (8th Cir. 1966) (explaining that substantial deficiency is determined based on all the attendant circumstances of the particular case) (......
-
In-house perspectives on considerations to protect privilege with respect to tax-related materials.
...1028 (5th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 862 (1981); United States v. Gunter, 474 F.2d 297 (9th Cir. 1973); Canaday v. United States, 354 F.2d 849 (8th Cir. 1954); In re Grand Jury Investigation (Shroeder), 842 F.2d 1223 (11th Cir. (26.) See, e.g., United States v. Davis, 636 F.2d 1028 ......