United States v. DiVarco
Decision Date | 14 August 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 72-1804.,72-1804. |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph DiVARCO and Joseph Arnold, Defendants-Appellants. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Raymond J. Smith, Chicago, Ill., for defendants-appellants.
James R. Thompson, U. S. Atty., William T. Huyck, Glynna W. Freeman, Asst. U. S. Attys., Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before MOORE, Senior Circuit Judge,* and CUMMINGS and PELL, Circuit Judges.
The defendants Joseph DiVarco and Joseph Arnold were charged in separate counts of an indictment with willfully and knowingly making and subscribing to a false statement on their respective 1965 federal income tax returns, which returns were verified by written declarations that they were made under the penalties of perjury, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1). The two defendants were also indicted for conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 in that they conspired with Irwin Davis, an unindicted co-conspirator, in violation of 26 U. S.C. § 7206(1), to report a false source of income from Chemical Mortgage & Investment Corporation, of which Davis was a stockholder and agent, "so as to conceal from the Internal Revenue Service of the United States the true source of the income reported and to prevent examination by the said Internal Revenue Service as to the truth or falsity of the income reported."
A jury found the defendants guilty as charged and each was sentenced to one year on the conspiracy count and to five years on probation on the substantive counts, the probation to run consecutively to the period of imprisonment.
On this appeal, appellants raise three separate grounds for reversal: the impropriety of prosecution under 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) when there was no showing of an understatement of income; improper activity of the district judge; and the erroneous admission into evidence of defendant Arnold's prior felony conviction.
Chapter 75, subchapter A, of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, 26 U.S.C. §§ 7201-7241, is concerned with tax crimes. Sections 7201-7207, inclusive, which in the aggregate relate to attempts to evade or defeat tax, to failures to act, and to fraud, all include the word "willfully" in their respective contexts. Specifically, § 7206 is a felony statute and reads:
Appellants contend that since there was no showing by the Government that they had in fact understated their income, 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) was not applicable and only the general federal false statement statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, related to their alleged misconduct. Prosecution under that section was allegedly barred by the statute of limitations.1 The district court in a memorandum opinion, United States v. DiVarco, 343 F.Supp. 101 (N.D. Ill. 1972), concluded that the source of income was a "material matter" and that the willful and knowing misstatement of the source of income was covered by the prohibition in § 7206(1).
It is true, as contended by the defendants and observed by Judge Will in his opinion, that most, if not all, of the cases involving misstatement of source of income also involved an understatement of taxable income. However, "one of the more basic tenets running through all the cases is that the purpose behind the statute is to prosecute those who intentionally falsify their tax returns regardless of the precise ultimate effect that such falsification may have." 343 F.Supp. at 103.
We agree with and adopt Judge Will's opinion as to materiality. The plain language of the statute does not exclude the matter of the source of income from the definition of "material matter." In light of the need for accurate information concerning the source of income so that the Internal Revenue Service can police and verify the reporting of individuals and corporations, a misstatement as to the source of income is a material matter.2
As to the defendants' argument that they should only have been charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, "the choice lies with the Government, and it is not the privilege of the defendant to say that the Government should have proceeded under a different section." United States v. Rayor, 204 F.Supp. 486, 489-490 (S.D.Cal.1962), appeal dismissed, 323 F.2d 519 (9th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 993, 84 S.Ct. 632, 11 L. Ed.2d 479 (1964).
Appellants also contend that, as in Spies v. United States, 317 U.S. 492, 63 S.Ct. 364, 87 L.Ed. 418 (1943), it was incumbent on the Government to prove specific intent and evil motive and purpose. Since the Government never proved that appellants had other sources of income which they were seeking not to disclose, it is argued that the proof of evil purpose was insufficient. While Spies involved a violation of the predecessor to 26 U.S.C. § 7201, § 145(b) of the Revenue Act of 1936, which proscribed attempts to "evade or defeat any tax" and not false swearing on a return, nevertheless, it is clear that willfulness under § 7206(1) also requires proof of bad purpose or evil motive. United States v. Bishop, supra, 412 U.S. at 359, 93 S.Ct. 2008. This is not to say, however, that the evil motive must have been to evade the payment of taxes, which was what was involved in Spies. Here there was evidence from which the jury could have found, and apparently did, that the defendants reported income but falsely reported the source. Evil motive, of course, was not admitted. It seldom is. Of necessity, it is ordinarily proven by other evidence from which the inference may fairly be drawn that the evil motive existed at the pertinent time.
While the district court in its charge to the jury did not advert to bad purpose or evil motive in haec verba, we find no difficulty in discerning from the thorough coverage afforded by the instructions that the jury was told of the necessity of the mens rea. The following extracts from the charge sufficiently demonstrate the point:
The evidence was more than sufficient to sustain the charge of violation of § 7206(1).
Appellants next contend that the district judge's participation in the trial of this case violated the principles of fair trial enunciated in United States v. Hill, 332 F.2d 105 (7th Cir. 1964). In Hill, the district judge participated extensively in the cross-examination of the defendant and his witnesses while asking only two questions of Government witnesses, both of which brought out answers highly favorable to the Government. Further, the judge knew that the answers...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Askew, 15674
...made known. United States v. Spero, supra, [625 F.2d at] 781; United States v. Brown, supra, [603 F.2d at ] 1028; United States v. DiVarco, 484 F.2d 670, 677 (7th Cir.1973); Gordon v. United States, supra, [383 F.2d at ] 941." Id., at 527, 447 A.2d 396. Of course, it is equally true that, a......
-
State v. Nardini
...of the defendant is also made known. United States v. Spero, supra, 781; United States v. Brown, supra, 1028; United States v. DiVarco, 484 F.2d 670, 677 (7th Cir. 1973); Gordon v. United States, supra, 941. One of the principal witnesses for the state in this case had been convicted of ban......
-
United States v. Bastone
...of the prior conviction to the issue of credibility" (383 F.2d at 939). That test was adopted by this Court in United States v. DiVarco, 484 F.2d 670, 677 (7th Cir. 1973), and, when applied to this record shows that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in making his ruling.10 IV. TH......
-
People v. Jackson
...States v. Greenberg, 419 F.2d 808, 809 (CA 3, 1969)), and the last expression from the Seventh Circuit is in accord. United States v. DiVarco, 484 F.2d 670, 677 (CA 7, 1973).The Eighth Circuit has rejected this approach. United States v. Scarpellino, 431 F.2d 475, 479 (CA 8, 1970).The Fifth......
-
Tax violations.
...as that which is necessary "in order that the taxpayer estimate and compute his tax correctly"). (195.) See United States v. DiVarco, 484 F.2d 670, 673 (7th Cir. 1973) (reporting income from false source in attempt to deceive IRS is material); accord United States v. Lamberti, 847 F.2d 1531......
-
Tax violations.
...order that the taxpayer estimate and compute his tax correctly"), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1146 (1999). (188.) See United States v. DiVarco, 484 F.2d 670, 673 (7th Cir. 1973) (holding reporting income from false source in attempt to deceive IRS is (189.) See Peters, 153 F.3d at 461 (finding f......
-
Tax violations.
...information as that necessary "in order that the taxpayer estimate and compute his tax correctly"). (190.) See United States v. DiVarco, 484 F.2d 670, 673 (7th Cir. 1973) (holding reporting income from false source in attempt to deceive IRS is (191.) See Peters, 153 F.3d at 461 (finding fal......
-
Tax violations.
...information as that necessary "in order that the taxpayer estimate and compute his tax correctly"). (192.) See United States v. DiVarco, 484 F.2d 670, 673 (7th Cir. 1973) (reporting income from false source in attempt to deceive IRS is material); accord United States v. Lamberti, 847 F.2d 1......