United States v. Howard Lee Baker

Sixth Circuit

United States v. Howard Lee Baker

451 F.2d 352, 28 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6041, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 6924

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedNovember 26, 1971

Docket21034

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 451 F.2d 352 (United States v. Howard Lee Baker) 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

United States v. Howard Lee Baker, 451 F.2d 352, 28 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6041, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 6924 (6th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In his appeal from a conviction by a jury for income tax evasion, appellant complains about a re-examination of his books and records by agents of Internal Revenue Service without complying with the provisions of 26 U.S.C. § 7605(b). The trouble with this contention is that taxpayer never objected to the re-examination, but voluntarily furnished the books and records to the agents. He therefore waived compliance with the statute. Lessmann v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 327 F.2d 990, 996 (8th Cir. 1964); United States v. O’Connor, 237 F.2d 466, 476 (2d Cir. 1956); United States v. Young, 215 F. Supp. 202 (E.D.Mich.1963).

There was no duty on the part of the Internal Revenue agents to advise taxpayer of his constitutional rights. United States v. Stribling, 437 F.2d 765 (6th Cir. 1971), and cases cited therein.

Nor do we find any error in the admission of testimony of taxpayer’s attorney in fact, who was also an attorney at law. The attorney testified concerning leads furnished to the Government which it was bound to investigate in connection with its net worth computation. No confidential matters were disclosed to the agents.

We find no error in an unresponsive answer of a witness to a question propounded by the Prosecutor. The Court did not unduly restrict cross-examination of the witness Washington.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In his appeal from a conviction by a jury for income tax evasion, appellant complains about a re-examination of his books and records by agents of Internal Revenue Service without complying with the provisions of 26 U.S.C. § 7605(b). The trouble with this contention is that taxpayer never objected to the re-examination, but voluntarily furnished the books and records to the agents. He therefore waived compliance with the statute. Lessmann v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 327 F.2d 990, 996 (8th Cir. 1964); United States v. O’Connor, 237 F.2d 466, 476 (2d Cir. 1956); United States v. Young, 215 F. Supp. 202 (E.D.Mich.1963).

There was no duty on the part of the Internal Revenue agents to advise taxpayer of his constitutional rights. United States v. Stribling, 437 F.2d 765 (6th Cir. 1971), and cases cited therein.

Nor do we find any error in the admission of testimony of taxpayer’s attorney in fact, who was also an attorney at law. The attorney testified concerning leads furnished to the Government which it was bound to investigate in connection with its net worth computation. No confidential matters were disclosed to the agents.

We find no error in an unresponsive answer of a witness to a question propounded by the Prosecutor. The Court did not unduly restrict cross-examination of the witness Washington.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

451 F.2d 352, 28 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6041, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 6924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-howard-lee-baker-ca6-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack