Soeder v. United States

Sixth Circuit

Soeder v. United States

142 F.2d 236, 32 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 569, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3301

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedApril 20, 1944

DocketNo. 9568

StatusPublished

This text of 142 F.2d 236 (Soeder v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Soeder v. United States, 142 F.2d 236, 32 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 569, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3301 (6th Cir. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

SIMONS, Circuit Judge.

Upon an appeal from the conviction of the above-named appellants upon an indictment charging them with felonious counsel and advice in the preparation of a false and fraudulent return made by a corporation in its income and excess profit return for 1936, and the principal grievance of the appellants being failure of proof to show the legal existence of the corporation under the laws of Ohio, but,

It also appearing that the returns were filed as the returns of a corporation and that the business had been conducted as a corporate business, and a corporation being defined in the applicable statute of the Revenue Act of 1936 in § 1001(a) (2) thereof, 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code, § 3797 (a) (3), with such breadth as to include within its ambit de facto corporations and associations,

We find no error in the instruction of the court that the alleged acts were on behalf of the corporation without submission to the jury of a question of fact in respect to its legal existence, and finding no other substantial errors in the record,

It is ordered that the judgments below be and they are hereby affirmed.

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

SIMONS, Circuit Judge.

Upon an appeal from the conviction of the above-named appellants upon an indictment charging them with felonious counsel and advice in the preparation of a false and fraudulent return made by a corporation in its income and excess profit return for 1936, and the principal grievance of the appellants being failure of proof to show the legal existence of the corporation under the laws of Ohio, but,

It also appearing that the returns were filed as the returns of a corporation and that the business had been conducted as a corporate business, and a corporation being defined in the applicable statute of the Revenue Act of 1936 in § 1001(a) (2) thereof, 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code, § 3797 (a) (3), with such breadth as to include within its ambit de facto corporations and associations,

We find no error in the instruction of the court that the alleged acts were on behalf of the corporation without submission to the jury of a question of fact in respect to its legal existence, and finding no other substantial errors in the record,

It is ordered that the judgments below be and they are hereby affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 F.2d 236, 32 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 569, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/soeder-v-united-states-ca6-1944.