United States v. Davidson

Decision Date02 July 1970
Docket NumberNo. 7564.,7564.
Citation428 F.2d 461
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. John Thomas DAVIDSON, Defendant, Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

Harvey A. Silverglate, Boston, Mass., with whom Flym, Zalkind & Silverglate, Boston, Mass., was on brief, for appellant.

Willie J. Davis, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Herbert F. Travers, Jr., U. S. Atty., and James B. Krasnoo, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, McENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges.


The defendant, admittedly an illegal dealer in narcotics, was convicted of violation of 26 U.S.C. § 4705(a) for selling heroin without receiving the order form thereby required. His sole ground of appeal is that section 4705(a) violates the Tenth Amendment.* Concededly, no Fifth Amendment rights are involved. Minor v. United States, 1969, 396 U.S. 87, 90 S.Ct. 284, 24 L.Ed.2d 283.

Basically, defendant asserts that since, as an illegal dealer, he was not obliged to pay the occupational tax imposed by section 4721, and no tax was due from the buyer, there was no federal purpose to be served by the form, and hence no federal right to require it. In 1928 the Court in Nigro v. United States, 276 U.S. 332, 48 S.Ct. 388, 72 L.Ed. 600, upheld the constitutionality of the order form requirement as to unregistered sellers on the ground that it aided in the collection of excise and occupational taxes imposed by the federal narcotics act. Defendant notes, correctly, that illegal dealers were then subject to the occupational tax, and argues that since now they are not, Nigro is inapplicable and we must reach a different result.

We do not agree. It does not follow that because the defendant is exempt from the occupational tax, federal tax collection is not aided by the information sought in the order form. In the first place, although the defendant seller may not have been subject to the section 4721 tax, his supplier may have been a lawful importer who had neglected to pay his own occupational tax. Secondly, the sale may have involved narcotics subject to the excise tax, 26 U.S.C. § 4701, due from the original importer or manufacturer, but unpaid. In either case the information supplied on the order form might set in motion a chain of inquiry directly related to the collection of federal taxes. SeeNigro, ante, at 347, 48 S.Ct. 388.

Beyond this, we think the government has a valid interest in obtaining information for less immediate...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • United States v. Palmer, 7684.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • December 14, 1970
    ...the tax. We have already held in another connection that it is not necessary that restrictions fall only on taxpayers. United States v. Davidson, 428 F.2d 461 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 910, 91 S.Ct. 154, 27 L.Ed.2d 149 (1970). This interest is well demonstrated in the case at bar. ......
  • United States v. Barcella, 7612.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • October 14, 1970
    ...The defendant was charged with selling heroin without receipt of the written order required by 26 U.S.C. § 4705(a). See U. S. v. Davidson, 1 Cir., 1970, 428 F.2d 461. On this appeal his principal contention is that the court should have acquitted him because, as a matter of law, in going to......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT