Wampler v. Snyder, 5927.
| Decision Date | 05 June 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 5927.,5927. |
| Citation | 62 App. DC 215,66 F.2d 195 |
| Parties | WAMPLER v. SNYDER, Marshal. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
William E. Leahy, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Leo A. Rover, Charles B. Murray, and John H. McEvers, all of Washington, D. C., and Simon E. Sobeloff, of Baltimore, Md., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and VAN ORSDEL, HITZ, and GRONER, Associate Justices.
Petitioner was indicted in the District Court of the United States for the District of Maryland for violation of section 2146 (b) of title 26 of the United States Code Annotated (Act May 29, 1928, c. 852, § 146 (b), 45 Stat. 835). The indictment charged an attempt to evade the payment of taxes by the filing of a false income tax return with the Collector of Internal Revenue at Baltimore. Petitioner's legal residence is in the city of Washington in the District of Columbia.
Under authority of section 12, title 26, USCA, the President has created the Maryland tax collection district to include the state of Maryland and the District of Columbia, and the office of the collector is located in Baltimore. The District Court in Maryland issued a bench warrant for petitioner's arrest, and he was brought before a United States Commissioner of the District of Columbia on a warrant of removal. There was a hearing before the Commissioner, at the conclusion of which petitioner's removal for trial to the city of Baltimore was ordered. Petitioner thereupon sued out before the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and upon hearing, the petition was dismissed. An appeal was taken to this court.
A motion has been made to dismiss or affirm. The basis of the motion is that the appeal was taken for delay only, and that the questions raised are manifestly frivolous. We granted a hearing in open court, and the points involved were fully discussed by counsel for petitioner and the appellee.
We think the action of the lower court in dismissing the petition for habeas corpus and in remanding petitioner to the Marshal for removal to Baltimore was in all respects correct.
The grounds urged by petitioner against removal are, first, that the District Court in Maryland is without jurisdiction because it was shown and admitted that petitioner placed his income tax return in the United States mail in Washington for delivery in Baltimore, and from this it is argued that the offense, if any, was committed in the District of Columbia. We think the contention is without merit.
The act (section 53 26 USCA § 2053) provides that the income tax return "shall be made" to the collector for the district in which is the legal residence of the taxpayer. The office of the collector, as we have seen, is in the city of Baltimore in the state of Maryland. It is there and nowhere else that the return "shall be made," and the mere placing of the return in the mail in Washington city is not a compliance with the statute. The words "shall be made," as used in the statute, are the equivalent of "shall be filed," and to file a paper is to deliver it at the place where it is to be lodged and kept. When the mails are utilized for this purpose, the filing takes places upon delivery at the office of the official required to receive it. See United States v. Lombardo (D. C.) 228 F. 980, 982, and cases cited, affirmed 241 U. S. 73, 36 S. Ct. 508, 60 L. Ed. 897.
Second. Petitioner contends that at the hearing before the Commissioner he was not allowed to offer evidence to show lack of probable cause. We have examined the transcript of evidence certified to us on the appeal, and we think that this point too is without merit. The evidence tending to show lack of probable cause which petitioner offered was evidence tending to show petitioner's good faith and honesty in the compilation of his income tax return. In this case the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thorp v. Dist. of Columbia
...lack of requisite intent." Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 145–46, 99 S.Ct. 2689, 61 L.Ed.2d 433 (1979) ; see also Wampler v. Snyder, 66 F.2d 195, 196–97 (D.C. Cir. 1933) ("Disputed questions of fact, especially where they involve the question of intent, ... should never be considered on t......
-
Reass v. United States
...of formal documents, such as certificates or reports at a designated office. See United States v. Lombardo, supra; Wampler v. Snyder, 62 App. D.C. 215, 66 F.2d 195; Bowles v. United States, 4 Cir., 73 F.2d 772. In the Wampler case the defendant placed an income tax return in the mail in the......
-
United States v. Lefkoff, 10072.
...there and nowhere else that the defendant was required to make his return. Bowles v. United States, 4 Cir., 73 F.2d 772; Wampler v. Snyder, 62 App.D.C. 215, 66 F.2d 195. The crimes alleged in the indictment follow closely the language of the statute, 26 U.S.C.A. § 145(b), and consist of a s......
-
United States v. Ross, Crim. No. 23138
...both as to the criminal information and indictment is denied except as to the first count of the indictment. 1 Wampler v. Snyder, 1933, 62 App.D.C. 215, 66 F.2d 195; United States v. Warring, D.C.D.Md.C.D.1954, 121 F.Supp. 546, affirmed, 4 Cir., 1955, 222 F.2d 906; United States v. Yarborou......