United States v. Aaron, A-6640 and A-6642.
| Decision Date | 29 December 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. A-6640 and A-6642.,A-6640 and A-6642. |
| Citation | 117 F. Supp. 952 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of West Virginia |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. AARON. UNITED STATES v. BRIDWELL et al. |
Howard Caplan, U. S. Atty., Clarksburg, W. Va., Milford Gibson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Kingwood, W. Va., and Roderick A. Devison, Asst. U. S. Atty., Fairmont, W. Va., for plaintiff.
Carl G. Bachmann, Wheeling, W. Va., Louis D. Meisel, Fairmont, W. Va., S. D. Lopinsky and Philip Angel, Charleston, W. Va., for Albert A. Aaron.
C. W. Moxley and W. M. Drennan, of Charleston, W. Va., for Robert H. Bridwell and Louise Bridwell.
The defendants in both of the above cases were indicted in September, 1953, in the District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, for the violation of Section 145(b) Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 145(b).
The charges in both indictments are substantially the same, and charge in effect that the defendants "did willfully and knowingly attempt to defeat and evade a large part of the income tax due and owing * * * to the United States of America * * * by filing and causing to be filed with the Collector of Internal Revenue for the Internal Revenue Collection District of West Virginia, at Parkersburg, West Virginia, a false and fraudulent income tax return."
The defendants have filed two motions, one asking that the particular case be transferred to the District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia under Rule 21(b), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., and the other motion asking for a bill of particulars. Counsel have stated that the latter motion for a bill of particulars is made in aid of the first motion to transfer. The motion for bill of particulars asks the government to state where the defendants resided at the time the returns were filed, and where the income tax returns were executed and placed in the mail.
The defendants claim that the offenses charged in the indictments were committed in both the Northern and Southern Districts of West Virginia and can be transferred to the Southern District for trial under Rule 21(b). The government says the indictments charge a single act, filing at one place, Parkersburg, with a designated official, the Collector of Internal Revenue, and that the offense of filing at Parkersburg was committed wholly within the Northern District of West Virginia where the City of Parkersburg is located. I think the government is correct in this contention. Where the defendants resided when the returns were filed, or where the returns were executed and placed in the mails is of no importance, because the defendant is not charged with making or mailing a false return. He is charged with filing a false return at Parkersburg, in the Northern District of West Virginia.
The statute requires income tax returns to be filed with the Collector, Section 53(b) (1, 2) Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 53(b) (1, 2). The office of the Collector is at Parkersburg, and that is the place where the defendants were required to file their returns. The mailing of the returns does not constitute a "filing" under the statute. Wampler v. Snyder, 62 App.D.C. 215, 66 F.2d 195.
The same questions arose in a recent case before Judge Darr in the Eastern District of Tennessee. United States v. Lefkoff, 113 F.Supp. 551, 556. Judge Darr stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reynolds v. United States, 15284.
...a fraudulent return that the offense was committed where the returns were filed. See the conflicting decisions in United States v. Aaron, D.C.N.D.W.Va., 117 F. Supp. 952, and United States v. Albanese, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 117 F.Supp. 736. The charge in the case at bar, however, includes the makin......
-
United States v. Foster, Crim. No. 25463.
...in view of Judge Chesnut's opinion in Warring, supra, and of Bowles v. United States, 4 Cir., 73 F.2d 772, 774, United States v. Aaron, N.D.W.Va., 117 F. Supp. 952, and the dissenting opinion of Judge Miller in United States v. United States District Court, 6 Cir., 209 F.2d 575, 577, it is ......
-
Beaty v. United States, 6760.
...a fraudulent return that the offense was committed where the returns were filed. See the conflicting decisions in United States v. Aaron, D.C.N.D.W.Va., 117 F.Supp. 952, and United States v. Albanese, D.C.S.D. N.Y., 117 F.Supp. 736. The charge in the case at bar, however, includes the makin......
-
State ex rel. Murphy v. Superior Court In and For Pima County
...date of mailing, however, is not the equivalent of 'filing'. Harper v. Borden Company, 129 So.2d 330 (La.App.1961); United States v. Aaron, D.C., 117 F.Supp. 952 (1953); Kahler-Ellis Company v. Ohio Turnpike Commission, 6 Cir., 225 F.2d 922 (1955). The pending appeal, therefore, should have......