United States v. Alker, 12313.

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
• Citation: 260 F.2d 135
• Docket Number: No. 12313.,12313.
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. Harry J. ALKER, Jr., Appellant.
• Decision Date: 10 September 1958

260 F.2d 135 (1958)

UNITED STATES of America
v.
Harry J. ALKER, Jr., Appellant.

No. 12313.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued January 23, 1958.

Decided September 10, 1958.

Rehearing Denied October 22, 1958.

260 F.2d 136

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

260 F.2d 137

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

260 F.2d 138

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

260 F.2d 139

Raymond J. Bradley, Philadelphia, Pa. (Frank F. Truscott, Philadelphia, Pa., McBride, von Moschzisker & Bradley, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant

John A. Erickson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa. (Harold K. Wood, U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.

Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, KALODNER, Circuit Judge, and WRIGHT, District Judge.

WRIGHT, District Judge.

The appellant, Harry J. Alker, Jr., an attorney, was convicted of willfully attempting to defeat and evade the income tax by filing a false and fraudulent return for each of the taxable years 1947, 1948, 1949 and 1950 pursuant to 26 U.S. C.A. § 145(b). The several years constituted separate counts in the indictment. Confinement for one year and a day and imposition of a $10,000 fine were decreed on each of the first three counts; the periods of imprisonment to run concurrently. On count four, appellant was sentenced to three years imprisonment to run consecutively with the sentence imposed on counts one, two and three. Execution on the fourth count was suspended and appellant was placed on probation for three years provided that within the first year bona fide efforts are made to conclude all matters involving tax liabilities between himself and the United States. This appeal followed.

The grounds urged for a new trial are set forth below:

1. The evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.

2. Defendant's motions for the withdrawal of a juror because of the improper cross-examination of one of his character witnesses should have been granted.

3. Defendant was prejudiced by the trial judge's failure to charge as requested.

4. Defendant was prejudiced by the trial judge's erroneous rulings on the admission of evidence;

(a) The trial judge erred in admitting the opinion testimony concerning the value of the Freihofer stock.

(b) The trial judge erred in admitting evidence concerning defendant's failure to file an income tax return for 1946, a year prior to the years covered by the indictment.

5. Defendant was deprived of a fair trial because of the denial of his motion for continuance.

The contentions will be considered seriatim.

260 F.2d 140

I

Section 145(b) of the 1939 Internal Revenue Code in pertinent part states:¹

"* * * any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this chapter or the payment thereof, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution."

Proof that a taxpayer had net income greater than the amount disclosed in his return requiring the payment of a tax substantially in excess of that reported coupled with independent evidence that the understatement was willful is a violation of the denominated provision.²

The Government sought to sustain its burden of showing that appellant had net income greater than the amount reported by evidence of specific items of revenue purportedly received in the examination period. Appellant concedes, as he must, that the proof adduced would have enabled the triers to conclude that he had significantly understated his net income and correspondent tax liability for each of the indictment years.³ The question presented is whether certain documents were sufficiently corroborated within the purview of Smith v. United States.⁴ There the Supreme Court adopted for income tax prosecutions, the general rule that an accused cannot be convicted on his own uncorroborated confession. The opinion extended the doctrine to admissions at least where the statement is made after the fact to an official charged with investigating the possibility of wrongdoing, and the statement embraces an element vital to the Government's case.⁵ Reference to the instant trial record is indicated to determine the exact application of the declared principles.

At the commencement of proceedings the Government introduced appellant's returns for 1947, 1948, 1949 and 1950 which disclosed the following data:⁶

 Fig. 1
                 Net Income or
                 Year (Loss) Tax
                 1947 ($11,238.54) None
                 1948 ($10,204.29) None
                 1949 $14,975.77 $3,643.11
                 1950 ($27,512.02) None
                

The prosecution then proceeded to reconstruct appellant's true income for the period. Income from three principal sources was revealed: Professional fees; dividends and interest; directors' fees.

The dividend/interest figure was substantiated by testimony from representatives of the various corporations whose stocks and/or bonds were registered in the name of appellant. Cancelled checks were produced by these witnesses disclosing that the instruments were payable and endorsed by appellant.

The evidence concerning directors' fees consisted primarily of testimony by duly designated officials from the corporations

260 F.2d 141

of which appellant was a director coupled with production of cancelled checks payable and endorsed by appellant. Entries transcribed from appellant's books established the remaining fees emanating from this source

The largest item of unreported income involved earnings from appellant's thriving law practice. These sums were substantiated in part by direct testimony of clients which was documented where possible. In addition, transcriptions from appellant's books by revenue agents were submitted. Further, the Government relied on certain statements and schedules prepared by appellant or his accountant compiled for purposes of audit during administration of the Hurst and Freihofer estates. It is noted that the last mentioned documents were rendered by appellant in his capacity as executor of the estates. Finally, cancelled checks signed by appellant as executor of the Hurst and Freihofer estates which were submitted by him to Federal and State auditors of the estates were introduced.

From the previously noted evidence the Government summarized and presented what it deemed a fair representation of appellant's income for the crucial period. A qualified Revenue Agent prepared and submitted this resume to the triers.⁷ In relevant part it disclosed the following:⁸

 Fig. 2
                 NET INCOME
                 Year Reported Corrected Additional
                 1947 ($11,238.54) $ 79,450.88 $ 90,689.42
                 1948 ($10,204.29) $ 46,968.85 $ 57,173.14
                 1949 $14,975.77 $ 20,171.37 $ 5,195.60
                 1950 ($27,512.02) $161,224.77 $188,736.79
                 ____________ ___________ ___________
                 TOTALS ($33,979.08) $307,815.87 $341,794.95
                 ============ =========== ===========
                 TAX LIABILITY
                 Year Reported Corrected Additional
                 1947 --0-- $ 46,131.71 $ 46,131.71
                 1948 --0-- $ 20,900.71 $ 20,900.71
                 1949 $3,643.11 $ 5,888.57 $ 2,245.46
                 1950 --0-- $109,720.69 $109,720.69
                 _________ ___________ ___________
                 TOTALS $3,643.11 $182,641.68 $178,998.57
                 ========= =========== ===========
                

Appellant does not challenge the Government's proof elicited pertinent to the dividend, interest and director fee sources. The sole contention herein relevant is that certain documents introduced with respect to professional fees were admissions requiring corroboration which was lacking. Appellant urges that if the questioned exhibits be discarded the evidence is insufficient to sustain a finding that his net income was understated for 1947, 1948, 1949 and 1950.⁹ The contested exhibits are Government's G-44, 71, 77, 78, 94, 95, 96, 97, 100 and 101. To properly delineate the issues

260 F.2d 142

the contents of these documents will be briefly set forth:

Exhibit G-44 consists of 24 checks drawn on the estate of Winfred S. Hurst and payable to Harry J. Alker, Jr., (the drawer of the checks was Harry J. Alker, Jr., Executor of the estate of Winfred S. Hurst). The earliest of the 24 is dated January 20, 1950; the last October 12, 1950. They range in amount from $500 to $7,000 and total $90,206.49. The checks were submitted by appellant to the Internal Revenue Service in connection with the audit of estate tax return in the Hurst estate wherein the appellant was executor and attorney. Revenue Agent Gurbarg, who received the checks testified that defendant related they were in payment of a fee for services to the decedent during his lifetime, his executor's commission and his fee as attorney for the estate. These checks were furnished to substantiate particular deductions for debts and administration expenses claimed upon the estate tax return. G-44 was admitted without objection.

Exhibit G-71 comprises the original notes of testimony transcribed at a hearing on May 14, 1951 by Frank Rogers Donahue, Esq., the auditor of the estate of William Freihofer, pursuant to the direction of the Philadelphia Orphans' Court by whom the auditor was duly appointed. Harry J. Alker was both executor and counsel for the Freihofer estate. At the May 14 hearing Alker submitted in his official capacity, at the auditor's request, a list of expenses paid by him from the estate denominated attorney's fees. The statement was prepared from the records of the estate by Rhoads, appellant's accountant and bookkeeper. It disclosed numerous payments to Hall, Bruce & Alker, Attorneys, aggregating $92,100 for 1947, $32,600 for 1948 and $148,000 for 1949. Mr. Donahue personally testified and identified G-71.

With reference to the information set forth in the exhibit A. D. Bruce, Esq., testified that he was associated with Alker during the years 1947, 1948 and 1949 and that he received for his services relating to the Freihofer estate $5,000 in 1947 and $10,000 in 1949. He identified exhibit D-3, a check dated July 19, 1949 for $10,000 which he stated represented the 1949 payment.

Edwin...