United States v. Habig, No. 107

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtFORTAS
Citation390 U.S. 222,88 S.Ct. 926,19 L.Ed.2d 1055
Decision Date05 March 1968
Docket NumberNo. 107
PartiesUNITED STATES, Appellant, v. Arnold HABIG et al

390 U.S. 222
88 S.Ct. 926
19 L.Ed.2d 1055
UNITED STATES, Appellant,

v.

Arnold HABIG et al.

No. 107.
Argued Jan. 17, 1968.
Decided March 5, 1968.

Harris Weinstein, Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Lester M. Ponder Indianapolis, Ind., for appellees.

Mr. Justice FORTAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Appellees were indicted for crimes relating to allegedly false income tax returns. The District Court dismissed Counts 4 and 6 of the indictment, charging as attempt to evade taxes by filing of a false return (26 U.S.C. § 7201) and aiding in the preparation and presentation of a false return (26 U.S.C. § 7206(2)), on the ground that the six-year statute of limitations, 26 U.S.C. § 6531, barred prosecution under those counts. D.C., 270 F.Supp. 929. The United States filed notice of appeal to this Court under 18 U.S.C. § 3731. We noted probable jurisdiction. 389 U.S. 810, 88 S.Ct. 35, 19 L.Ed.2d 62.

The question presented is the construction of §§ 6531 and 6513(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (26 U.S.C. §§ 6531 and 6513(a)). It is squarely raised

Page 223

by the facts of this case. The indictment was filed on August 12, 1966. The income tax returns involved in Counts 4 and 6 were filed on August 12, and 15, 1960. Section 6531 limits the time when indictments may be filed for the charged offenses to six years 'next after the commission of the offense.'

The offenses involved in Counts 4 and 6 are committed at the time the return is filed. See e.g., Swallow v. United States, 307 F.2d 81, 83 (C.A.10th Cir. 1962); Benham v. United States, 215 F.2d 472, 473 (C.A.5th Cir. 1954); Butzman v. United States, 205 F.2d 343, 350—351 (C.A.6th Cir. 1953); United States v. Yeoman-Henderson, Inc., 193 F.2d 867, 869 (C.A.7th Cir. 1952); United States v. Croessant,178 F.2d 96, 98 (C.A.3d Cir. 1949); Cave v. United States, 159 F.2d 464, 467 (C.A.8th Cir. (1947). Six years had not quite elapsed from the commission of the crimes in the present case to the filing of the indictment. Appellees do not contest the chronological calculation. But because of § 6513(a) of the Code, they say that the critical date here is not the date when the returns were actually filed but the date when they were initially due to be filed, viz., May 15, and not August 15, 1960.

The basis for this contention is as follows: Section 6531, which prescribes the six-year period of limitations, also says that '(f)or the purpose of determining (such) periods of limitation * * * the rules of section 6513 shall be applicable.' Instead of filing on the due date of May 15, 1960, the corporations obtained extensions of time to August 15, 1960. Accordingly, if the six-year period of limitations runs not from the date of actual filing (August 12 and 15, 1960) but from the original due date of the returns (May 15, 1960), the indictment, having been filed on August 12, 1966, was several months too late.

Page 224

Section 6513(a) reads as follows:

'SECTION 6513. TIME RETURN DEEMED FILED AND TAX CONSIDERED PAID.

'(a) Early Return or Advance Payment of Tax.—For purposes of section 6511 (relating to claims for credit or refund), any return filed before the last day prescribed for the filing thereof shall be considered as filed on such last day. For purposes of section 6511(b)(2) and (c) and section 6512 (relating to suits in the Tax Court), payment of any portion of the tax made before the last day prescribed for the payment of the tax shall be considered made on such last day. For purposes of this subsection, the last day prescribed for filing the return or paying the tax shall be determined without regard to any extension of time granted the taxpayer and without regard to any election to pay the tax in installments.'

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
115 practice notes
  • US v. Ohle, No. S2 08 Cr. 1109(LBS).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • January 12, 2010
    ...26 U.S.C. § 6531(2). The period begins to run upon the filing of the tax returns that underlie those counts. See United States v. Habig, 390 U.S. 222, 223, 88 S.Ct. 926, 19 L.Ed.2d 1055 (1968). The initial indictment in this case was returned on November 13, 2008. The returns at issue were ......
  • Corliss v. McGinley, 1:18-cv-2192
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • August 17, 2020
    ...in favor of repose,' United States v. Scharton, 285 U.S. 518, 522, 52 S.Ct. 416, 417, 76 L.Ed. 917 (1932).' United States v. Habig, 390 U.S. 222, 227, 88 S.Ct. 926, 929, 19 L.Ed.2d 1055 (1968)." Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112, 114-15 (1970). Significantly, the Supreme Court has......
  • United States v. Ogbazion, Case No. 3:15-cr-104
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • October 17, 2016
    ...Circuit rejected both arguments. More specifically, the Sixth Circuit, citing the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Habig, 390 U.S. 222 (1968), held that 26 U.S.C. § 6513 only applies where either taxes are paid in advance or an early return is filed. Sams, 865 F.2d at 715.Page 2......
  • United States v. Marion 8212 19, No. 70
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • December 20, 1971
    ...The Court has indicated that criminal statutes of limitation are to be liberally interpreted in favor of repose. United States v. Habig, 390 U.S. 222, 227, 88 S.Ct. 926, 929, 19 L.Ed.2d 1055 (1968). The policies behind civil statutes of limitation are in many ways similar. They 'represent a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
115 cases
  • US v. Ohle, No. S2 08 Cr. 1109(LBS).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • January 12, 2010
    ...26 U.S.C. § 6531(2). The period begins to run upon the filing of the tax returns that underlie those counts. See United States v. Habig, 390 U.S. 222, 223, 88 S.Ct. 926, 19 L.Ed.2d 1055 (1968). The initial indictment in this case was returned on November 13, 2008. The returns at issue were ......
  • Corliss v. McGinley, 1:18-cv-2192
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • August 17, 2020
    ...in favor of repose,' United States v. Scharton, 285 U.S. 518, 522, 52 S.Ct. 416, 417, 76 L.Ed. 917 (1932).' United States v. Habig, 390 U.S. 222, 227, 88 S.Ct. 926, 929, 19 L.Ed.2d 1055 (1968)." Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112, 114-15 (1970). Significantly, the Supreme Court has......
  • United States v. Ogbazion, Case No. 3:15-cr-104
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • October 17, 2016
    ...Circuit rejected both arguments. More specifically, the Sixth Circuit, citing the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Habig, 390 U.S. 222 (1968), held that 26 U.S.C. § 6513 only applies where either taxes are paid in advance or an early return is filed. Sams, 865 F.2d at 715.Page 2......
  • United States v. Marion 8212 19, No. 70
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • December 20, 1971
    ...The Court has indicated that criminal statutes of limitation are to be liberally interpreted in favor of repose. United States v. Habig, 390 U.S. 222, 227, 88 S.Ct. 926, 929, 19 L.Ed.2d 1055 (1968). The policies behind civil statutes of limitation are in many ways similar. They 'represent a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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