United States v. Beacon Brass Co., Cr. 51-288.

• Decision Date: 10 January 1952
• Docket Number: Cr. 51-288.
• Citation: 106 F. Supp. 510
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. BEACON BRASS CO., Inc. et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

106 F. Supp. 510

UNITED STATES v. BEACON BRASS CO., Inc. et al.

Cr. 51-288.

United States District Court D. Massachusetts.

January 10, 1952.

George F. Garrity, U. S. Atty., Joseph M. Hargedon, Asst. U. S. Atty., Harold G. Jackson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.

Richard Maguire, Boston, Mass., for defendant.

McCARTHY, District Judge.

The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the indictment because it is duplicitous and because it does not state an offense within the terms of Title 26 U.S.C.A. § 145(b).

A similar indictment was dismissed on motion by this Court on April 27, 1951 (Criminal No. 51-55). I quote from the memorandum filed on that date: "The return of the Beacon Brass Company, Inc., for the fiscal year ending October 31, 1944, was filed with and received by the Collector of Internal Revenue in Boston, Massachusetts, on either January 5 or January 15, 1945. The stamp of the receiving office, which appears to be indistinct, reads `January 5, 1945'. But since the check of the Beacon Brass Co., Inc., in payment of its reported tax was dated January 15, 1945, I would find as a fact if it were important (which it is not), that the return was filed on January 15, 1945. The six-year statute of limitations against the filing of a false return in violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 145(b) commenced to run on that date. The indictment in this case was not returned by the Grand Jury until March 16, 1951, which is well over the six-year period * * *. The present indictment in one count * * (charges) a violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 145 (b), plus the making of false statements at a hearing and conference before the representatives and employees of the United States Treasury Department on October 24, 1945. This is bad pleading. If the United States wanted to allege a violation of 18 U.S.C.A. (1940 ed.) § 80, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1001, (1948 ed.), for the making of false statements, it should have set it forth succinctly in the language of the statute * * *" (Emphasis supplied.)

The indictment with which we are here concerned was returned on September 14, 1951, charging the defendants with violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 145(b) in that the individual defendant made fraudulent statements on October 24, 1945 to Treasury Agents concerning payments and disbursements by the corporate defendant for the purpose of concealing additional unreported income. The only difference, therefore, between this indictment and the indictment in Criminal No. 51-55 in this Court is that no mention is made here by the Government of the fact that the corporation filed its tax return in January of 1945.

This indictment does not charge that the defendants violated 18 U.S.C.A. § 1001. A...