Wausau Sulphate Fibre Co. v. Commissioner of Int. Rev.
| Citation | 61 F.2d 879 |
| Decision Date | 30 November 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 4716.,4716. |
| Parties | WAUSAU SULPHATE FIBRE CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Robert A. Littleton and W. W. Spalding, both of Washington, D. C. (Mason, Spalding & McAtee, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for petitioner.
G. A. Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key and Carlton Fox, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen. (C. M. Charest, Gen. Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and E. L. Updike, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for respondent.
Before ALSCHULER, EVANS, and SPARKS, Circuit Judges.
The one question here involved is whether the statute of limitations (Revenue Acts 1918 and 1921, § 250 (d), 40 Stat. 1083, 42 Stat. 265) bars the asserted tax, and this depends on whether a series of waivers, which upon their face admittedly would toll the statute, are shown by the record to have been sufficiently identified to warrant their admissibility in evidence. The Board of Tax Appeals admitted them, and the alleged erroneous admission is the basis of the appeal.
On the hearing before the Board, respondent offered the original waivers in evidence in connection with the offer of depositions of taxpayer's officers taken at taxpayer's instance some months before, at Wausau, Wis. Counsel for taxpayer objected to their reception by the Board on the ground that there was no evidence that they were signed as they purported to be, nor of their having been filed with or taken from the Bureau of Internal Revenue; and that no witness identified them as a part of his testimony. It appears that thereupon the special counsel in charge of the case before the Board was sworn, and he testified that these waivers were from, and were taken from, the files of the Bureau of Internal Revenue relating to this case, and that they were the same files which were offered in evidence on the taking of the depositions, and were stamped by the notary before whom they were taken, who duly returned them with the depositions. This sufficiently identified the waivers as having been part of and taken from the files of the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
If it be deemed that further proof of the genuineness of the waivers was necessary, the record afforded such proof. In the files of the case there were several original papers of the taxpayer, including the petition itself, whereon the signature of the taxpayer's president appears. These files were of course before the Board, which then had opportunity for comparison of the signature thereon with those on the waivers purporting to be by the same president. When the Board found, as it did, that the taxpayer made the waivers, it had before it the evidence which was afforded by these signatures. Such comparisons with the signature on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Krueger
...Commissioner, 2 Cir., 45 F. 2d 679, above cited; Commissioner v. Angier Corp., 1 Cir., 50 F.2d 887, above cited; Wausaw Sulphate Fibre Co. v. Commissioner, 7 Cir., 61 F.2d 879; Warner Collieries Co. v. United States, 6 Cir., 63 F.2d 23 Lucas v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 45 F. 2d 781, above cite......
-
CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Morales
...2d 186, 197, 225 N.E.2d 152, 157 (1967) (judges and juries are capable of comparing handwriting); Wausau Sulphate Fibre Co. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 61 F.2d 879, 880 (7th Cir. 1932) (members of tax appeal board could competently compare signatures).¶ 11 Nine months later, on September......
-
State v. Miller
...McLeod v Crosby, 128 Mich. 641, 87 N.W. 883; 7 Wigmore, Evidence, §§ 2158--2159 (3d Ed.). Compare Wausau Sulphate Fibre Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 61 F.2d 879 (7th Cir. 1932); and State v. Brady, 2 Ariz.App. 210, 407 P.2d It must be remembered that in this case Exhibit 26 was ......
-
Spear v. McDermott
...pertaining to that litigation should be sufficient to support admission of the document. See, e.g., Wausau Sulphate Fibre Co. v. Commissioner, 61 F.2d 879, 880 (7th Cir.1932) (testimony of counsel was sufficient to identify a public 14. In this case, as we previously noted, Spear's counsel ......
-
FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE
...for admission in evidence. Brandon v. Collins, 267 F.2d 731 (2d Cir. 1959); Wausau Sulphate Fibre Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 61 F.2d 879 (7th Cir. 1932); Desimone v. United States, 227 F.2d 864 (9th Cir. 1955). Example (4). The characteristics of the offered item itself, consi......
-
Rule 901 AUTHENTICATING OR IDENTIFYING EVIDENCE
...for admission in evidence. Brandon v. Collins, 267 F.2d 731 (2d Cir. 1959); Wausau Sulphate Fibre Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 61 F.2d 879 (7th Cir. 1932); Desimone v. United States, 227 F.2d 864 (9th Cir. 1955). Example (4). The characteristics of the offered item itself, consi......
-
28 APPENDIX U.S.C. § 901 Authenticating Or Identifying Evidence
...for admission in evidence. Brandon v. Collins, 267 F.2d 731 (2d Cir. 1959); Wausau Sulphate Fibre Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 61 F.2d 879 (7th Cir. 1932); Desimone v. United States, 227 F.2d 864 (9th Cir. Example (4). The characteristics of the offered item itself, considered i......