60 F.2d 58 (2nd Cir. 1932), 455, United States v. Miro

Docket Nº455.
Citation60 F.2d 58
Party NameUNITED STATES v. MIRO.
Case DateJuly 05, 1932
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals, United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)

Page 58

60 F.2d 58 (2nd Cir. 1932)

UNITED STATES

v.

MIRO.

No. 455.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

July 5, 1932

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

J. Richard Davis, of New York City, for appellant.

George Z. Medalie, U. S. Atty., of New York City (Thomas E. Dewey, Murray I. Gurfein, and Livingston Hall, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of New York City, of counsel), for the United States.

Before MANTON, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.

MANTON, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is from a conviction and sentence for violation of the income tax laws. Section 146(a, b), Revenue Act of 1928, section 2146(a, b), title 26, U.S.C. (26 USCA § 2146(a, b)). Counts 1, 2, and 3 charge a willful attempt to evade and defeat income taxes for the years 1928, 1929, 1930, section 146(b); counts 4, 5, and 6 for willful failure to file income tax returns for 1928, 1929, and 1930, section 146(a).

It was charged in counts 1, 2, and 3, and proved at the trial, that the appellant's taxable income in 1928, 1929, and 1930 was, respectively, $34,965.97; $46,103.02, and $86,963.07. As to counts 4, 5, and 6, it was charged that the appellant had a gross income in excess of $5,000 and a net income in excess of $3,900 for each of these years. The sentence imposed was three years on each of the felony counts, to run concurrently, and to imprisonment for one year and a fine of $5,000 on each of the three misdemeanor counts, the same to run consecutively after the three-year sentence, provided, however, that a commutation of the jail sentence on all of the one-year terms is to be procured if the three-year term is served. Therefore, on the affirmance of this conviction, the appellant will serve the three-year term only.

The appellant concedes that he did not file an income tax return or pay a tax for any of these years, and that he lived within the Southern district of New York. He had a wife and one child, and was entitled to an exemption of $3,900.

Prior to the years in question, the appellant was a stoker on a steamship. In 1927, he became established as a banker in gambling, running a policy or number game in New York City. The game consists of betting

Page 59

small sums upon three certain digits in the daily reports of the New York Clearing House. The bets range from a penny to a dollar. Each business day during the years in question, in the morning, the Clearing House would post two figures, one showing the total bank clearings for the preceding day and the other showing the Clearing House balance on hand at the end of each day. The afternoon newspapers published in the city would carry these figures. The number to be guessed included the last two digits in the thousands of the total quoted, and the last digit in the thousands of the balance. For example, if the Clearing House total should be 7,674,932 and the balance 372,441, the winning number would be 742. Odds, of course, were very much against the player winning. The policy business was run by the appellant on a large scale. He had collectors who were men having direct dealings with the players or bettors. They took the cash bet of the players, together with the slips showing the record of the numbers bet on and the amount, and the player would receive a duplicate slip as a receipt from the collector. The collector received 20 per cent. of his collections as compensation, which was deducted before they turned in their collections at the end of the week; they also received 5 per cent. of the money they turned in during the week. The number of collectors was very large. From time to time, over the period of years in question, the collectors were arrested and the appellant bailed them out, for it is a violation of section 974 of the New York Penal Law (Consol. Laws, c. 40) to engage in this game. It was also known that the appellant paid for bail bonds, which were very frequently forfeited, and he engaged a lawyer to represent the collectors who were arrested. As the business grew, the office of controller was created; he had charge of groups of collectors and acted as captain for the group. The controller was paid 10 per cent. of the week's receipts, one-half of which he gave to the collectors. The appellant dealt exclusively with the controllers, having no contact with the collectors or with the bettors. He had an office, which was closely guarded, and of necessity moved from time to time. As the operation proceeded every morning, the collectors, having collected their bets the night before would, before 10 o'clock, deliver the players' slips to their respective controllers, who would forward these by messenger to the appellant. It was necessary that the slips be in his office at 10:15, for the winning number would be known at 10:30. In the afternoon when the tabulation was completed, each controller was sent an adding machine tape, called a 'ribbon,' stating the amount received by the collector, less the 20 per cent. which he was entitled to keep for his compensation, the amount of hits, if any, the collector's players had scored, and the net amount due to the controller from the collector. The controller received a similar tape for himself, called a 'boss ribbon,' showing the total amount of money due from all of his collectors, for which amount he was accountable to the appellant. Each collector first deducted his own 20 per cent. of the receipts as his pay; he then paid any hits his players might have had that day, and sent the balance to the controller; the controller took the net proceeds of the collectors' daily business and forwarded them to the appellant.

The appellant had a number of bank accounts in which the moneys were deposited but this money was received by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 practice notes
  • 777 F.2d 644 (11th Cir. 1985), 84-5968, United States v. Edwards
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • 6 Diciembre 1985
    ...v. United States, 225 F.2d 123, 126 (5th Cir.1955), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 914, 76 S.Ct. 197, 100 L.Ed. 801 (1955); United States v. Miro, 60 F.2d 58, 60-61 (2d Cir.1932); Capone v. United States, 56 F.2d 927, 931 (7th Cir.1932), Page 651 denied, 286 U.S. 553, 52 S.Ct. 503, 76 L.Ed. 1288 (1......
  • 165 F.Supp. 328 (E.D.Ark. 1958), 1706, United States v. Florida
    • United States
    • United States State District Court of Eastern District of Arkansas
    • 18 Agosto 1958
    ...that he has income, and, if the amount exceeds exemptions and deductions, that the income is taxable. United States v. Miro (2 Cir.), 60 F.2d 58; Oliver v. United States (7 Cir.), 54 F.2d 48, certiorari denied, 285 U.S. 543, 52 S.Ct. 393, 76 L.Ed. 935; Guzik v. United States (7 Cir.), 54 F.......
  • 80 F.2d 394 (8th Cir. 1935), 10203, Gleckman v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • 26 Noviembre 1935
    ...that he has income, and, if the amount exceeds exemptions and deductions, that the income is taxable. United States v. Miro (C.C.A.) 60 F.2d 58; Oliver v. United States (C.C.A.) 54 F.2d 48, certiorari denied, 285 U.S. 543, 52 S.Ct. 393, 76 L.Ed. 935; Guzik v. United States (C.C.A.) 54 F.2d ......
  • 152 F.Supp. 370 (S.D.N.Y. 1957), United States v. Siegel
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • 27 Mayo 1957
    ...v. United States, 220 U.S. 338, 31 S.Ct. 421, 55 L.Ed. 489; Catrino v. United States, 10 Cir., 176 F.2d 884; United States v. Miro, 2 Cir., 60 F.2d 58. The acts and endeavors to obstruct and impede the administration of justice which are charged in this indictment include the suppression or......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
29 cases
  • 777 F.2d 644 (11th Cir. 1985), 84-5968, United States v. Edwards
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • 6 Diciembre 1985
    ...v. United States, 225 F.2d 123, 126 (5th Cir.1955), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 914, 76 S.Ct. 197, 100 L.Ed. 801 (1955); United States v. Miro, 60 F.2d 58, 60-61 (2d Cir.1932); Capone v. United States, 56 F.2d 927, 931 (7th Cir.1932), Page 651 denied, 286 U.S. 553, 52 S.Ct. 503, 76 L.Ed. 1288 (1......
  • 165 F.Supp. 328 (E.D.Ark. 1958), 1706, United States v. Florida
    • United States
    • United States State District Court of Eastern District of Arkansas
    • 18 Agosto 1958
    ...that he has income, and, if the amount exceeds exemptions and deductions, that the income is taxable. United States v. Miro (2 Cir.), 60 F.2d 58; Oliver v. United States (7 Cir.), 54 F.2d 48, certiorari denied, 285 U.S. 543, 52 S.Ct. 393, 76 L.Ed. 935; Guzik v. United States (7 Cir.), 54 F.......
  • 80 F.2d 394 (8th Cir. 1935), 10203, Gleckman v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • 26 Noviembre 1935
    ...that he has income, and, if the amount exceeds exemptions and deductions, that the income is taxable. United States v. Miro (C.C.A.) 60 F.2d 58; Oliver v. United States (C.C.A.) 54 F.2d 48, certiorari denied, 285 U.S. 543, 52 S.Ct. 393, 76 L.Ed. 935; Guzik v. United States (C.C.A.) 54 F.2d ......
  • 152 F.Supp. 370 (S.D.N.Y. 1957), United States v. Siegel
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • 27 Mayo 1957
    ...v. United States, 220 U.S. 338, 31 S.Ct. 421, 55 L.Ed. 489; Catrino v. United States, 10 Cir., 176 F.2d 884; United States v. Miro, 2 Cir., 60 F.2d 58. The acts and endeavors to obstruct and impede the administration of justice which are charged in this indictment include the suppression or......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT