United States v. Clark
Decision Date | 04 August 1954 |
Docket Number | Crim. A. No. 23,067. |
Citation | 123 F. Supp. 608 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. CLARK. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
Laughlin E. Waters, U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., by Norman W. Neukom, and Richard A. Lavine, Asst. U. S. Attys., Los Angeles, Cal., and George Willi, Sp. Asst. to the Atty. Gen., Tax Division, for plaintiff.
Charles H. Carr. William K. Rasmussen, Los Angeles, Cal., J. A. Donnelley, San Diego, Cal., for defendant.
Whenever the Government and the defendant in a criminal case waive a jury, they are entitled to not just a verdict one way or the other, but to the reasons behind it. This conforms to the Canons of Judicial Ethics of the American Bar Association (Canon 19) and to a practice which I have followed consistently.1 So in what follows I shall set forth the problem involved in this case and the solution arrived at.
The defendant is charged with violation of Section 145(b) of the Internal Revenue Code,2 i. e. with having willfully attempted to evade and defeat his individual income taxes and those of his wife Lena G. Clark for each of the years 1946 and 1947 by filing and causing to be filed on behalf of himself and his wife false and fraudulent income tax returns wherein he knowingly and unlawfully understated and caused to be understated his and his wife's net income and income tax liability. Each of the income tax returns involved was filed with the Collector of Internal Revenue for the Sixth Internal Revenue Collection District of California, at Los Angeles, California. It is, therefore, within the jurisdiction of this court.3
The taxable income reported on both the 1946 and 1947 individual income tax returns of Lena G. Clark consists entirely of her community property one-half, as established under Nevada law, of the taxable income reported on the 1946 and 1947 individual income tax returns of her husband, Wilbur I. Clark. Accordingly, if there was a willful understatement of taxable income on the returns of Wilbur I. Clark for the years 1946 and 1947, it would necessarily result in a willful understatement of taxable income, in corresponding amounts, on the separate returns of Lena G. Clark for the same years.
The underpayment charged under count one was $21,559.10; on count two, $21,620.84; on count three, $3,261.13; and on count four, $3,465.38.
Through Bills of Particulars furnished prior to the trial it became known that the Government would use what is known as "the net worth" method in presenting its case. This formula has been defined in this manner:
The section under which the prosecution is had requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of two elements: (a) that there was attempt to evade the taxes due, and (b) that the attempt was willful. If these be present, it matters not whether the source of the income is legal or illegal.6
Indeed, the Government insists on participating in the fruits of the most illegal transactions. It draws the line only at theft of property as to which it makes no claim in the thief's hands upon the ground that a thief acquires no title.7
The Supreme Court, in a leading case has pointed to the fact, which is very significant in every prosecution under this section, that more is required than a mere omission to make a return and pay a tax:
The courts have generally held that to satisfy these requirements the return must be a fraudulent one.9 But it is to be noticed as the writer of the article referred to in the American Bar Association Journal states, that what arose out of a special situation in cases where no adequate books have been kept is now so commonly used that there is danger that a prosecution for a serious felony may be based entirely upon disagreement as to bookkeeping methods. And the burden of proof may be shifted entirely on the taxpayer to explain not some items concealed by failure to keep books, but items which books kept in the regular course of business and of the type sanctioned by reputable accountants for a particular business may not reflect. Some courts have warned against such contingencies.10
A study of the cases will reveal the fact that the original use of this method was sanctioned because it related to illegal activities by persons, who, because of the nature of their business, could not and would not keep books adequately reflecting their income. Illustrative perhaps is the leading case decided by the Supreme Court which sanctioned such method.11 There, large-scale gambling was carried on in a state in which gambling was not allowed. Mr. Justice Frankfurter characterized the defendant as a "gambler on a magnificent scale". Johnson concealed his ownership of gambling establishments in Chicago, a city in which no legal gambling is allowed. Records kept were meager and even such as were kept were destroyed. In the circumstances, the Court used the following language:
In the case before us we are confronted with a gambler who operates in a state in which gambling is legalized. The Government, in its brief, makes this statement:
The use of the phrase "professional gambler" does not imply approbrium since gambling is legal in Nevada. At any rate, a Government which insists on collecting income from illicit enterprises13 is not in a position to play the moralist. By an Act of the Legislature of Nevada approved March 19, 1931, gambling games and gambling devices may be licensed.14 When so licensed the conduct of gambling games is lawful. The statute is now codified. The Supreme Court of Nevada has sustained the right of the legislature to enact this law,15 and the United States District Court of Nevada has held that a gambling enterprise operated under Nevada law was a monied and business corporation within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Act.* The language of the late Judge Norcross is very appropriate:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tseung Chu v. Cornell
...States, 203 F. 2d 884; Bloch v. United States, 9 Cir., 221 F.2d 786; Legatos v. United States, 9 Cir., 222 F.2d 678; and United States v. Clark, D.C., 123 F.Supp. 608. Cf. Berra v. United States, 351 U.S. 131, at page 134, 76 S.Ct. 685, at page 687, 100 L.Ed. "Plaintiff contends that the ca......
-
Nyberg v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
... 123 F. Supp. 599 ... MONTGOMERY WARD & CO ... No. 453 ... United States District Court, W. D. Michigan, N. D ... August 12, 1954. 123 F. Supp. 600 ... Alabama, 107 U.S. 581, 2 S. Ct. 432, 27 L.Ed. 518; Clark v. Barnard, 108 U.S. 436, 2 S.Ct. 878 27 L.Ed. 780; Stone v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 116 U.S ... ...
-
Baumgardner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
...1954, 348 U.S. 160, 75 S.Ct. 186, 99 L.Ed. 202. See, Blackwell v. United States, 8 Cir., 1957, 244 F.2d 423, 429; United States v. Clark, D.C. Cal.1954, 123 F.Supp. 608. 10 United States v. Calderon, supra Note 11 See, Commissioner v. Thompson, 3 Cir., 1955, 222 F.2d 893; Davis v. Commissio......
-
Clark v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 12298.
...is the lesser. * * *" 3 Holland v. United States, supra, 348 U.S. at pages 128-129, 75 S.Ct. at page 132. See United States v. Clark, D.C.S.D.Cal. 1954, 123 F.Supp. 608; Avakian, Net Worth Computations as Proof of Tax Evasion, 10 Tax L.R. 431 4 The Tax Court held the problem as to 1948 fore......