Home/Ninth Circuit/Everett S. Hamman and Clella P. Hamman v. United States

Everett S. Hamman and Clella P. Hamman v. United States

340 F.2d 145
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedApril 26, 1965
Docket19280
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 340 F.2d 145 (Everett S. Hamman and Clella P. Hamman v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Everett S. Hamman and Clella P. Hamman v. United States, 340 F.2d 145 (9th Cir. 1965).

Opinion

JERTBERG, Circuit Judge.

Following trial to a jury, the appellants, Everett S. Hamman and Clella P. Hamman, husband and wife, were convicted on the second count of a two count indictment. The first count of the indictment charged that appellants did wilfully and knowingly attempt to evade and defeat “a large part of the income tax due and owing by them * * * for the calendar year 1956 by filing and causing to be filed * * *, a false and fraudulent joint income tax return, wherein it was stated that their taxable income for the calendar year 1956 was $1,227.04, and that the amount of tax due and owing thereon was $245.41, whereas, * * *, their taxable income for the calendar year 1956 was $19,894.25, upon which taxable income there was due and owing to the United States of America an income tax of $5,244.05.”

The allegations contained in Count Two of the indictment are the same as those contained in Count One, except that the year for which the violation is charged is 1957, and the income tax return filed for that year stated that the appellant’s taxable income for that year was zero and that the amount of tax due and owing thereon was zero, whereas their taxable income for the year was $5,578.-66, upon which taxable income there was due and owing an income tax of $1,147.-31.

The statute involved, 26 U.S.C. § 7201, in pertinent part provides:

“Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, on conviction .thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both, * * * 9f

The jury returned not guilty verdicts as to appellants under Count One.

The record discloses that from about the middle of 1952 through 1958, the appellants owned and operated a motel located at Fort Bragg, California. When they purchased the motel it had only fourteen rental units. Three additional rental units were added sometime in the year 1954 and four additional rental units were added in 1956. Other improvements were made to the motel in each of the four years, and new furnishings and equipment for the motel were added each year during the said period. The motel was purchased by the appellants on the representation made by the former owners that the gross income derived from the motel operations in 1951 was $17,500.00. The annual gross income from the motel operations for the years 1954 through 1957, as reflected in the income tax returns filed by appellants is:

1954 — $ 25,493.74
1955 — $ 27,311.12
1956 — $ 31,722.57
1957 — $ 29,754.74

The United States relied on the net worth method of proof. To prove the offenses charged in the indictment, the Government introduced evidence to prove annual net worth increases for each of the two indictment years, 1956 and 1957. In order to show a pattern of evasion over a four year period, the United States also introduced evidence tending to prove net worth increases in 1954 and 1955.

The core of the Government’s case against the appellants in summary form is as follows:

*147

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Smith
155 Cal. App. 3d 1103 (California Court of Appeal, 1984)
United States v. Frank F. Colacurcio
514 F.2d 1 (Ninth Circuit, 1975)
United States v. Joseph E. Flynn
481 F.2d 11 (First Circuit, 1973)
United States v. Alexander J. Ramantanin
452 F.2d 670 (Fourth Circuit, 1971)
Robert G. Baker v. United States
401 F.2d 958 (D.C. Circuit, 1968)
Bolen Webb and Cornelia Webb v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
394 F.2d 366 (Fifth Circuit, 1968)
Abraham Robert Ayash, Also Known as Robert Crail v. United States
352 F.2d 1009 (Tenth Circuit, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
340 F.2d 145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/everett-s-hamman-and-clella-p-hamman-v-united-states-ca9-1965.