Koontz v. United States

• Decision Date: 13 April 1960
• Docket Number: No. 18078.,18078.
• Citation: 277 F.2d 53
• Parties: Ralph A. KOONTZ, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

277 F.2d 53 (1960)

Ralph A. KOONTZ, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 18078.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

April 13, 1960.

Thomas A. Larkin, Samuel L. Payne, Jacksonville, Fla., Larkin, Lewis & Decker, Jacksonville, Fla., for appellant.

John L. Briggs, Asst. U. S. Atty., Jacksonville, Fla., E. Coleman Madsen, U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for appellee.

Before HUTCHESON, TUTTLE and JONES, Circuit Judges.

HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge.

Appellant was charged and tried under a simple indictment in one count¹ with willfully and knowingly attempting to evade and defeat payment of a part of his income tax for the calendar year 1953.

In his opening statement to the jury, counsel for the government, saying that he would put on evidence to show that for the year 1953 defendant, willfully and knowingly and with intent to defeat the tax, made an income tax return in which he claimed $1200 as an exemption on account of his then deceased wife, concluded: "That, in essence, is the government's case."

The defendant's counsel entered a plea of not guilty and, in his opening statement, stated as his defense:

"* * * the evidence will show, first of all that Mr. Koontz made an error, a technical error. Secondly, that even assuming that he made the error in the return, that if his return had been correctly calculated the Government would owe Mr. Koontz money because of a mistake that was made in certain portions of the return."

He then went on to say:

"And it is very important for you to listen to the Judge\'s charge, because at the close of this case he will charge you that, as one of the elements, the Government must prove a loss to the government. In other words, the fact that the return is mistakenly filled out, even willfully or knowingly, alone does not constitute the offense. There must be some loss of revenue to the Government in order to constitute the offense."

The Government then offered evidence to support its claim as made and at its conclusion the defendant made a motion for a directed verdict which was denied.

The defendant, then proceeding with his defense, undertook by his own testimony and that of other witnesses, including one Bradford, a certified public accountant, to establish his defenses, including the defense that an item listed in his return as a capital loss was a loss of ordinary income, and its allowance as such would show that the defendant not only did not evade taxes but had paid more tax than was due.

It was then that the trial lost its simplicity and became quite confused, complex and uncertain, with the result: that the defendant was unable to effectively put on his defense; the jury were instructed that the only issue in the case was whether the defendant had willfully claimed his deceased wife as a deduction; and defendant was completely deprived of his right to a trial of the defense which he had in good faith tendered. For the court, stating with reference to defendant's tendered issue, that he had overpaid his taxes:

"Well that is a question you will have to litigate on the civil side in this controversy and not in this court on the criminal side." (Emphasis supplied.)

and defendant's counsel replying:

"Your Honor, I beg to disagree. The question was that if he was entitled to take that, then he did not owe anything for that year, and it is very much a part of the criminal case."

the court replied:

"Well he did not claim it, and I am not going to try it out to see whether he was entitled to." (Emphasis supplied.)

Thereafter, though upon the continued insistence of defendant's counsel that the matter was material he did allow some testimony to come in, including testimony of the accountant that the loss was improperly classified as a capital loss instead of an ordinary loss and that in his opinion it was properly taken in the tax year, the court stating:

"But you are not in a position to say that he was entitled to it in that year and it should have been included in his return."; and "I will overrule your motion because the whole thing insofar as the case is concerned at this time is of no consequence." (Emphasis supplied.)

further stated:

"I am not going to let the government get into the question as to whether or not the $1000 was a proper deduction or whether or not the $3700 was a proper deduction. He has made no showing that he has ever made any effort to

...