United States v. Geller

• Decision Date: 02 May 1958
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. William GELLER, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

163 F. Supp. 502

UNITED STATES of America v. William GELLER, Defendant.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

May 2, 1958.

Paul W. Williams, U. S. Atty., Earl J. McHugh, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, for the United States.

Bernard Katzen, New York City, for defendant.

CASHIN, District Judge.

Defendant is charged in a four count indictment with evasion of income taxes for the calendar years 1951 through 1954. The counts in the indictment make bare allegations for each of the years in issue that the defendant made a false and fraudulent joint income tax return on behalf of himself and his wife wherein the adjusted gross income or the net income was under-reported. The amount of the adjusted gross income or net income actually reported is set out, as well as the actual net income claimed by the government.

Defendant moves for a bill of particulars. The government has consented to Items 3(b), 4 and 5. Thus, the items in dispute are as follows:—

Demands for—

1. The items and particulars making up the net income alleged by the government;

2. A complete schedule of each item of income claimed, particularizing the date, amount, manner of payment and the entity making each payment;

3. Item 3(a). Particulars as to additions to or subtractions from the gross income reported;

4. Item 6. A statement whether the Government bases its claim on the net worth-expenditure theory and, if so, the net worth of the defendant and his wife at the beginning and end of each year in issue, and the items claimed to constitute the net worth at the beginning of each year, together with all additions or subtractions therefrom claimed to have occurred during said year, as well as each expenditure made by the defendant during the year, with the date, amount, payee and manner of payment.

Although the extent to which bills of particulars in income tax cases should be granted has not been the subject of any holding of the Court of Appeals in this Circuit, that Court has grasped the opportunity to point out that motions for bills of particulars should be viewed with liberality. United States v. O'Connor, 2 Cir., 1956, 237 F.2d 466, 475-476. Viewing such motions with liberality, however, does not mean that the Government should be forced to disclose, before trial, the precise evidence upon which it intends to rely or to supply a list of prospective witnesses. The extent to which a defendant is entitled to a bill of particulars is, perhaps, best stated and analyzed in United States v. Dolan, D.C.Conn.1953, 113 F.Supp. 757. See also United States v. Cincotta, D.C. N.D.N.Y.1956, 19 F.R.D. 5; United States v. Kleinman, D.C.E.D.N.Y.1956, 19 F.R.D. 423; and United States v. Carb, D.C.E.D.N.Y.1954, 17 F.R.D. 242.

From the affidavit submitted by the government in opposition to...