Calderon v. United States, 13675.

Citation207 F.2d 377
Decision Date08 December 1953
Docket NumberNo. 13675.,13675.
PartiesCALDERON v. UNITED STATES.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

Norman S. Herring, W. Shelley Richey, Tucson, Ariz., for appellant.

Edward W. Scruggs, U. S. Atty., Oliver T. Hamilton, Asst. U. S. Atty., Phoenix, Ariz., John Lockley, Sp. Asst. to the Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before DENMAN, Chief Judge, and HEALY and BONE, Circuit Judges.

DENMAN, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court imposing fines and probation upon appellant upon conviction on four counts of income tax evasion.

The question here is whether admissions of Calderon were properly received in evidence absent any independent evidence of the crime of tax evasion.

Calderon operates a legitimate coin-machine business in Douglas, Arizona. He is charged with having failed to report all of the income from this business for the years 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949. The Government established the alleged excess income for these years by the "net worth" method, measuring the increase of net worth for each year. The items which went into a net worth statement prepared by the Government were stipulated to be correct with the exceptions of "Cash on Hand" and "Cash in the Bank."

The burden of proof is on the prosecution as to each pertinent starting item of the net worth statements to a reasonable certainty.1 Absent such a starting item as, say, cash on hand the remainder of the statement proves nothing. Here there is no question as to the items "cash in bank" as to each of the four years. As to "cash on hand," that, at the start of the accounting period, must be low enough to combine with the other factors to show a greater income than reported.

Here the Government's computation rested on $500 cash on hand at the beginning of 1946 and on that beginning amount the four years' charges of under reporting were made. At the trial a tax agent, a witness for the government testified as follows:

"Q. Now, let\'s get back to this statement. You said, as I understand it, that if the cash on hand item as it appears in your net worth statement is in error then the whole thing is in error, that is right, isn\'t it? A. It would affect it, yes. It wouldn\'t make any of the other items wrong or right.
"Q. Just make the total wrong all the way through? A. Yes, if the item was wrong.
"Q. The total taxes, the total amounts Mr. Calderon is to be charged with would be wrong all the way through? It is true, isn\'t it? A. Yes, sir."

Calderon contends there is no admissible evidence to show his charged understatements, since all the testimony concerning the cash on hand consisted of his extrajudicial admissions to the tax officials and to his tax consultant.

The Government claims that Calderon's sworn statement given the tax officials confessing the under-reporting of his income for the four years, which was introduced in evidence over the objection that the corpus...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • United States v. Clark
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • August 4, 1954
    ...P.2d 804. 22 Spies v. United States, supra Note 8. 23 Spriggs v. United States, 9 Cir., 1952, 198 F.2d 782, 783; Calderon v. United States, 9 Cir., 1953, 207 F.2d 377, 378; Smith v. United States, 1 Cir., 1954, 210 F.2d 496, 24 Spies v. United States, supra Note 8; Wardlaw v. United States,......
  • United States v. Figueroa-Paz, 72-1872.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • October 20, 1972
    ...1454, 28 L.Ed. 2d 711 (1971). See also United States v. Calderon, 348 U.S. 160, 164 n. 1, 75 S.Ct. 186, 99 L.Ed. 202 (1954), rev'g 207 F.2d 377 (9 Cir. 1953). Appellant could have rested on his motion instead of testifying. It is neither unusual nor persuasive that appellant has necessarily......
  • Opper v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • December 6, 1954
    ...its commission, is punishable as a principal.' 2 Warszower v. United States, 312 U.S. 342, 61 S.Ct. 603, 85 L.Ed. 876; Calderon v. United States, 9 Cir., 207 F.2d 377; Pines v. United States, 8 Cir., 123 F.2d 825; Gulotta v. United States, 8 Cir., 113 F.2d 683. 3 The three questions as set ......
  • Smith v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • March 26, 1954
    ...evidence of the corpus delicti. Warszower v. United States, 1941, 312 U.S. 342, 61 S.Ct. 603, 85 L.Ed. 876; Calderon v. United States, 9 Cir., 1953, 207 F.2d 377, petition for certiorari filed February 4, 1954. But all the other evidence must be considered together with the statements of th......
  • 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