Bennethum v. Superior Court of Del. In and For New Castle County

• Court: Delaware Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: SOUTHERLAND; SOUTHERLAND
• Citation: 153 A.2d 200,52 Del. 92,2 Storey 92
• Decision Date: 13 July 1959
• Parties: , 52 Del. 92 William H. BENNETHUM, III, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF the State of DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY and The Honorable Andrew D. Christie, Sitting As Judge of Said Court, Respondent.

Page 200

153 A.2d 200 2 Storey 92, 52 Del. 92 William H. BENNETHUM, III, Petitioner,
v.
SUPERIOR COURT OF the State of DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW
CASTLE COUNTY and The Honorable Andrew D.
Christie, Sitting As Judge of Said
Court, Respondent. Supreme Court of Delaware. July 13, 1959.

Page 201

Petition for writ of prohibition to the Superior Court of New Castle County. Petition granted.

[52 Del. 93] David B. Coxe, Jr., Wilmington, for petitioner.

Clement C. Wood, Chief Deputy Atty.Gen., for the State.

SOUTHERLAND, C. J., and WOLCOTT and BRAMHALL, JJ., sitting.

SOUTHERLAND, Chief Justice.

In the court below the petitioner Benethum was indicted for violation of the State income tax laws. He moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that it does not state facts constituting an offense. The court denied the motion.

Bennethum petitions for a writ of prohibition on the ground that the Superior Court had no jurisdiction of the cause.

The indictment in this case charges that on April 30, 1956, William H. Bennethum, III----

'Count I

'Being a natural person and a resident of the State of Delaware during the calendar year 1955 and having a gross income in excess of $600.00 during the calendar year 1955, did fail to file an income tax return for said year with the State Tax Department, as required by 30 Delaware Code, Section 1168, contrary to 30 Delaware Code, Section 1184(c).

'Count II

'Being a natural person and a resident of the State of Delaware during the calendar year 1955 and having a gross income in excess of $600.00 during the calendar year 1955, did fail to pay the income tax for which he was liable under the provisions of 30 Delaware Code, Chapter 11, contrary to 30 Delaware Code, Section 1184(c).'

[52 Del. 94] The sections of the State income tax law here pertinent are the following:

30 Del.C. § 1168:

'Returns * * * shall be filed by every taxable * * * on or before the thirtieth day of April in each year, for the preceding year.'

30 Del.C. § 1184(c):

'If a taxable fails or refuses to make a return or to pay a tax as provided in this chapter, such taxable shall be guilty of fraud and shall be liable to the penalties provided for fraudulent returns.'

30 Del.C. § 1187(e)(f):

'(e) Any person, or corporation or any officer or employee of any corporation, or any member or employee of any association of persons, syndicate, joint venture or copartnership, who with intent to evade any requirement of this chapter or any lawful requirement of the Tax Department thereunder, fails to pay any tax or to make, sign or verify any return or to supply any information required by or under the provisions of this chapter, or who, with like intent, shall make, render, sign or verify any false or fraudulent return or statement or shall supply any false or fraudulent information, shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than 6 months or both. The penalties provided by this paragraph shall be additional to all other penalties in this chapter provided.

'(f) Any taxable who refuses or neglects to make the return required to be made under this chapter within 30 days after the last day for making such return, or who refuses or neglects

Page 202

to pay the tax assessed against such taxable within 30 days after it becomes due, shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both.'

[52 Del. 95] The violations of law charged, it will be noted, are violations of § 1184(c). Petitioner argues that (1) this section contemplates only civil penalties and is not intended as a criminal statute; and (2) if it is to be deemed a criminal statute it is unconstitutional as an arbitrary attempt to create a conclusive presumption of fraud.

These contentions call for a construction of the three statutes quoted above--s 1184(c), § 1187(e) and § 1187(f). They are in pari materia and must be construed, if possible, so as to form a consistent pattern. This is a task of some difficulty, for the statutes are poorly drawn, and the...