TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

J. E. Wall, District Director v. Calvin D. Mitchell

J. E. WALL, District Director, Appellee, v. Calvin D. MITCHELL, Appellant

J. E. Wall, Dist. Dir. v. Mitchell, 287 F.2d 31 (4th Cir. 1961)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
February 10, 1961
Docket
No. 8215_1
Judges
Sobeloff, Boreman, Field
Citations
287 F.2d 317 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6581961 U.S. App. LEXIS 5340

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order entered by the District Court in a proceeding • under Section 7604, Internal Revenue Code of 1954 1

, directing the appellant, as president of Southern Appliances, Incorporated, a corporation, to give testimony and produce certain records of the corporation in response to a summons issued and served upon him pursuant to the provisions of Section 7602, Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

2

The records sought by the District Director covered the years 1944 through 1958, inclusive. The appellant complains of the District Court’s action, contending that since the statute of limitations has run on thirteen of the years in question, the District Director had failed to establish sufficient grounds for inquiry or production of the records. Admittedly, however, the existence of fraud in any of the subject years would remove the statutory bar 3

, and a bona fide suspicion of fraud justifies the investigation of the appropriate records.

4

We are well aware of the conflict among the several circuits relative to the showing of suspected fraud required from the Internal Revenue Service in such cases 5

, but we do not find it necessary to make a choice of criteria at this time. Here, the District Judge made a finding that there was probable cause *32 to suspect fraud in connection with the income tax returns filed by the taxpayer for the years in question. This finding was based on evidence of variance in profit and inventory figures shown on the tax returns as compared to reports filed with a banking institution; activities of agents of the taxpayer in removing reports from the bank’s files as well as evidence of improper personal expense items paid by the corporation.

Since the issue of fraud was actually tried before the District Court 6

and there was substantial evidence to support his finding, the judgment below is Affirmed.

1

. 26 U.S.C.A. § 7604 .

2

. 26 U.S.C.A. § 7602 .

3

. I.R.Code, 1954, § 6501(c) (1); 26 U.S.C.A. § 6501 (c) (1).

4

. Boren v. Tucker, 9 Cir., 239 F.2d 767 .

5

. Boren v. Tucker, supra; O’Connor v. O’Connell, 1 Cir., 253 F.2d 365 ; Foster v. United States, 2 Cir., 265 F.2d 183 ; Globe Construction Co. v. Humphrey, 5 Cir., 229 F.2d 148 ; Peoples Deposit Bank & Trust Co., Paris, Ky. v. United States, 6 Cir., 212 F.2d 86 .

6

. Rule 15(b), F.R.Civ.P. 28 U.S.C.A.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1962: 21963: 319622026peak 1963 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Royal G. Bouschor v. United States316 F.2d 451 (8th Cir. 1963)
  2. De Masters v. Arend313 F.2d 79 (9th Cir. 1963)
  3. Davis v. Davis303 F.2d 601 (7th Cir. 1962)
  4. Masters v. Arend313 F.2d 79 (9th Cir. 1963)
  5. United States v. Austin209 F. Supp. 101 (M.D.N.C. 1962)

Most recent

  1. Royal G. Bouschor v. United States316 F.2d 451 (8th Cir. 1963)
  2. Masters v. Arend313 F.2d 79 (9th Cir. 1963)
  3. De Masters v. Arend313 F.2d 79 (9th Cir. 1963)
  4. United States v. Austin209 F. Supp. 101 (M.D.N.C. 1962)
  5. Davis v. Davis303 F.2d 601 (7th Cir. 1962)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
Boren v. Tucker, 239 F.2d 767 (9th Cir. 1957) 90
Grant Foster & Foster Constr. C.A. v. United States, 265 F.2d 183 (2d Cir. 1959) 84
O'connor v. O'connell, 253 F.2d 365 (1st Cir. 1958) 32
Peoples Deposit Bank & Trust Co. v. United States, 212 F.2d 86 (6th Cir. 1954) 26
Globe Constr. Co. v. Humphrey, 229 F.2d 148 (5th Cir. 1956) 9

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list