United States v. Yoffe
| Decision Date | 15 October 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 16100-16102.,16100-16102. |
| Citation | 52 F. Supp. 175 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. YOFFE. SAME v. KRASNOW et al. SAME v. KRASNOW. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Edmund J. Brandon, U. S. Atty., of Boston, Mass., and Joseph M. Hargedon, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Lawrence, Mass., for plaintiff.
Joseph E. Casey, of Clinton, Mass., and C. Keefe Hurley and Hale & Dorr, all of Boston, Mass., for defendants.
Motions for bills of particulars, argued together, have been filed in the above numbered indictments in which Eli Yoffe and William S. Krasnow have been named as defendants.
A. In the first indictment (No. 16100) Eli Yoffe is charged with attempting to evade and defeat his income tax, in that he received as gross income for the calendar year 1936 the sum of $71,190.79 (salaries $4,080; interest $94.25; dividends $2,199.02; rents $2,750; other income $62,067.52) upon which a tax of $14,231.87 was allegedly owing to the government after the proper deductions and credits were allowed, but that he filed a return showing a gross income of $4,812.65 with deductions claimed totalling $1,764.07, leaving a net income of $3,048.58 upon which no tax was due and payable.
B. The indictment (No. 16102) charging William S. Krasnow with attempting to evade and defeat his income tax contains two counts. The first count charges Krasnow with receiving as gross income for the calendar year 1936 the sum of $67,619.12 (salaries $2,400; partnership income $10,265.90; capital gain $1,976.58; other income $52,976.64) upon which a tax of $15,288.38 was allegedly owed to the government after the proper deductions and credits were allowed; that the defendant filed a return showing a gross income of $14,642.48, deductions totalling $1,045.55, leaving a net income of $13,596.93 upon which a tax of only $827.60 was due and payable. The second count charges Krasnow with receiving as gross income for the calendar year 1937 the sum of $96,591.16 (salaries $2,000; partnership income $315.27; other income $94,275.89) upon which a tax of $28,775.36 was allegedly owed to the government after the proper deductions and credits were allowed; that the defendant filed a return showing a gross income of $2,315.27 upon which no tax was due and payable.
C. Eli Yoffe and William S. Krasnow were indicted (No. 16101) and charged with conspiracy to defeat and evade income and excess profits taxes of Yoffe-Krasnow, Inc., a corporation, for the calendar years 1934, 1935, and 1936, in that during those calendar years the corporation received net income of $116,684.24 (alleged tax due $21,253.29), $154,828.46 (alleged tax due $28,352.63), and $163,767.58 (alleged tax due $39,981.93), respectively, but that the said corporation filed income and excess profits tax returns, signed by Eli Yoffe as president and by William S. Krasnow as treasurer, which showed a net income of only $8,409.02 for 1934 (tax liability $1,156.24), $12,536.13 for 1935 (tax liability $1,723.72), and $979.28 for 1936 (tax liability $78.34). The indictment alleged it was part of said conspiracy that the defendants would sell goods of the corporation under the fictitious name of Y.K. Associates so as to prevent such corporate sales from being recorded on the corporation books; and that the defendants would divert large sums of the corporation's sales receipts from the corporation into bank and brokerage accounts owned by them so as to prevent such receipts from being treated by the corporation as income.
Defendant Yoffe moves that the government be ordered to furnish a bill of particulars with respect to the sources from which he is alleged to have received the sum designated in the indictment as "Other income". He also asks that the government be ordered to state the nature and kind of transactions from which it is claimed he derived such "other income". The above requests are prayers No. 1 and No. 2 in the defendant's motion for a bill of particulars. The third and last prayer requests that if it is claimed that the sums designated in the indictment as "other income" were derived by the defendant as the result of sales of goods, the government apprise him of the character of the goods sold, to whom and at what time the sales were made, and from what sources defendant originally received the goods; also, in arriving at the amount of the income claimed to have been derived by the defendant from these sales, what allowance, if any, was made for the cost of the goods, and what allowance, if any, was made for business expenses aside from the deductions set forth in the indictment.
The defendant Krasnow's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Lefkoff, 10072.
...certiorari denied 328 U.S. 850, 66 S.Ct. 1118, 90 L.Ed. 1623; United States v. U. S. Gypsum Co., D.C., 37 F.Supp. 398; United States v. Yoffe, D.C., 52 F.Supp. 175; United States v. Kelly, D.C., 92 F.Supp. 672; United States v. Aluminum Company of America, D.C., 41 F.Supp. In the present ca......
-
United States v. Gorman, Cr. No. 40708.
...v. Empire State Paper Corporation et al., D.C., 8 F.Supp. 220; United States v. Farrington, D.C., 11 F.Supp. 215; United States v. Yoffe, D.C., 52 F.Supp. 175, at page 177. Contra: United States v. Wexler, D.C., 6 F.Supp. 258. The ruling on this subject was not commented upon on the appeal ......
-
United States v. Andrews
...conspiracy. None of the reasons given for granting the bill of particulars in that case are applicable here. Again, in United States v. Yoffe, D.C., 52 F.Supp. 175, 177, the court required the government to furnish a bill of particulars showing only the source of the sum designated as "othe......
-
United States v. Kelly
...advance of the trial the evidence by which it will attempt to prove the charges alleged in the indictment." Again, in United States v. Yoffe, D.C., 52 F.Supp. 175, 177, one of the district judges for the District of Mass. defined the function of a bill of particulars as follows: "The functi......