United States v. Mousley

• Decision Date: 17 May 1961
• Docket Number: Crim. No. 20633.
• Citation: 194 F. Supp. 119
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. William A. MOUSLEY, Mae E. Mousley.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

194 F. Supp. 119

UNITED STATES of America v. William A. MOUSLEY, Mae E. Mousley.

Crim. No. 20633.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

May 17, 1961.

Walter E. Alessandroni, U. S. Atty., by Joseph J. Zapitz, Asst. U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

William Leon, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants.

WOOD, District Judge.

Counsel for defendants have ably briefed and argued a most interesting point, namely: When do the essential acts necessary to conviction under 26 U.S.C.A. § 7201, become precluded from proof by the statute of limitations (18 U.S.C.A. § 3282)?

The years involved are from 1942 through 1946, inclusive. The alleged attempts to evade took place in 1955, 1956 and 1957, inclusive. Obviously, if the statute of limitations is applicable, the period has run, since the last tax year involved is 1946 and the first act alleged to constitute an attempt to evade took place in 1955. The indictment clearly shows that the false statements alleged to have been made in 1955, 1956 and 1957 were a part of an offer to compromise, or an application for discharge of property from Federal tax lien. Counsel for defendant argues vigorously that the statements were all part and parcel of the original evasion, or attempt to evade, which took place when the original tax returns were filed. In support of his able argument, he strongly relies on a most interesting case, namely: United States v. Bridell, D.C.N.D.Ill.E.D.1960, 180 F.Supp. 268. In a carefully worded opinion, Judge Campbell in that case, and distinguishing it from United States v. Beacon Brass Co., Inc. et al., 1952, 344 U.S. 43, 73 S.Ct. 77, 97 L.Ed. 61, held in effect that where a taxpayer filed an individual return and at the same time, or closely related thereto, executed a corporate return that both acts were part of the same attempt to evade and, therefore, if the statute had run on one act it had run as to both. In other words, as we understand that decision, the filing of the individual return and the corporate return were so interwoven with the attempt to evade that it was part of the same general plan and could not be separated so as to toll the statute of limitations. The problem is, that our situation is considerably different. We think it it clear from the indictment itself that what happened in our case was that after a deficiency in the returns had been determined for the years prior to 1946, negotiations took place between the Government and the taxpayer as to...