United States v. Perfetti, 15186.
| Decision Date | 27 June 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 15186.,15186. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. PERFETTI et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Harry Wolov, Asst. U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.
Thomas D. McBride, of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant Perfetti.
Bernard I. Shovlin, of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant Cantie.
In this case the defendants are charged with removing nine five-gallon cans of untaxed alcohol with the intent to defraud the United States of such tax in violation of Section 3321, Title 26 U.S.C.A. A jury trial was waived. At the close of the government's case all facts were admitted by the defendants, and the case was submitted to the Court for decision on the defendants' motion for judgment of acquittal.
Several agents of the Alcohol Tax Unit noticed the odor of alcohol emanating from two private garages along a public street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. After watching these garages for several days, they saw the defendants on the evening of June 14, 1948 drive up to the garages, open one, back a car half way into it, and start loading cans into the car trunk. Upon questioning, the defendants admitted the cans contained alcohol. The federal agents then entered the garage and found nine five-gallon cans of untaxed alcohol in the car trunk, forty-four such cans of alcohol on the floor of the garage, and charcoal smelling of alcohol in the bottom of an old barrel in the garage.
The foregoing facts comprised the government's case. The Internal Revenue Code condemns as a criminal every person who "removes, deposits, or conceals" taxable goods with intent to defraud the United States of such tax.1 The indictment in this case charges the defendants only with the removal of untaxed alcohol. The defendants contend that while the facts presented may prove "deposit" or "concealment", they do not prove "removal". I agree.
The word "removal" as used in the statute connotes something more than "transport". It refers to the removal of alcohol from the place where it was made or where the tax thereon was supposed to be paid. See Price v. United States, 5 Cir., 150 F.2d 283, 285, certiorari denied 326 U.S. 789, 66 S.Ct. 473, 90 L.Ed. 479, rehearing denied 327 U.S. 813, 66 S.Ct. 519, 90 L.Ed. 1038. I think it might also mean the removal of alcohol from one storage place to another.
However, without any evidence showing that the untaxed alcohol was removed from the garage, the government cannot hope to sustain an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. ONE 1957 PLYMOUTH 4-DOOR SEDAN, C-117-58.
...D.C.S.D.Cal.1924, 300 F. 584; United States v. One Buick Sedan Automobile, D.C.S.D.Cal.1924, 1 F.2d 997; United States v. Perfetti, D.C. E.D.Pa.1950, 91 F.Supp. 909; Price v. United States, 5 Cir., 1945, 150 F.2d 283. Other courts, however, have interpreted removal as synonymous with transp......
-
United States v. Bregman
...shall be liable to a fine of not more than $5,000 or be imprisoned for not more than 3 years, or both." 4 In United States v. Perfetti, 91 F.Supp. 909 (E.D.Pa.1950), cited by Bregman, the indictment, under Section 3321(a) charged the defendants with removing cans of untaxed alcohol and the ......
-
United States v. Bregman, 13799.
...to constitute a violation of the statutes. Yellow Mfg. Acceptance Corp. v. United States, 84 F.2d 164 (9 Cir. 1936); United States v. Perfetti, 91 F. Supp. 909 (E.D.Pa.1950). See Auerbach v. United States, 136 F.2d 882 (6 Cir. 1943). There is no indication of any intent on the part of Congr......
-
Hyche v. United States, 18481.
...from one vehicle to another does not make out a case of "removal." See Price v. United States, 5 Cir., 150 F.2d 283; United States v. Perfetti, D.C.E.D.Pa., 91 F.Supp. 909. But the act of placing the whiskey in the trunk of the car, considered in connection with appellant's flight to avoid ......