United States v. Scharton

285 U.S. 518, 52 S. Ct. 416, 76 L. Ed. 917, 1932 U.S. LEXIS 450, 1932 C.B. 211, 10 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1623, 3 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 926
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedApril 11, 1932
Docket621
StatusPublished
Cited by156 cases

This text of 285 U.S. 518 (United States v. Scharton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Scharton, 285 U.S. 518, 52 S. Ct. 416, 76 L. Ed. 917, 1932 U.S. LEXIS 450, 1932 C.B. 211, 10 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1623, 3 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 926 (1932).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Roberts

delivered- the opinion of the Court.

The appellee was indicted under § 1114 (b) of the Revenue Act of 1926, 1 the charge being attempts to evade taxes for 1926 and 1927 by falsely understating taxable income. In bar of the action he pleaded that the face of the indictment showed the offenses were committed more than three years prior to the return of a true bill. The plea was sustained and the indictment quashed, on the ground that the period of limitations is fixed by the first clause of § 1110 (a) of the Act, 2 and not, as the appellant contended, in the proviso thereof. The basis of this ruling was -that the offense defined by use of the words “ evade or defeat ” does not involve defrauding or attempting to defraud within the intent of the proviso.

The appellant contends fraud is implicit in the concept of evading or defeating; and asserts that attempts to obstruct or defeat the lawful functions of any department of the Government (Haas v. Henkel, 216 U. S. 462, 479-480) or to cheat it out of money to which it is entitled *521 (Capone v. United States, 51F. (2d) 609,615) are attempts to defraud the United States if accompanied by deceit, craft, trickery or other dishonest methods or schemes, Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U. S. 182, 188. Any effort to defeat or evade a tax is said to be tantamount to and to possess every element of an attempt to defraud the taxing body.

We are required to ascertain the intent of Congress from the language used and to determine what cases the proviso intended to except from the general statute of limitations applicable to all offenses against the internal revenue laws. Section 1114 (a) makes wilful failure to pay taxes, to make return, to keep necessary records, or to supply requisite information, a misdemeanor; and § 1114 (c) provides that wilfully aiding, assisting, procuring, counselling, or advising preparation or presentation- of a false or fraudulent return, affidavit, claim, or document shall be a felony. Save for that under consideration these are the only sections in the Revenue Act of 1926 defining offenses against the income tax law. There are, however, numerous statutes expressly making intent to defraud an element of'a specified offense against the revenue laws. 3 Under these, an indictment failing to aver that intent would be-defective; but under § 1114 (b) such an averment would be surplusage, for it would be sufficient to plead and prove a wilful attempt to evade or defeat. Compare United States v. Noveck, 271 U. S. 201, 203.

As said in the Noveck case; statutes will not be read as creating crimes or classes of crimes unless’ clearly so intended, and obviously we are here concerned with one meant only to fix periods of limitation. Moreover, the concluding clause of the section, though denominated a proviso, is an excepting clause and therefore to be nar *522 rowly construed. United States v. McElvain, 272 U. S. 633, 639. And as the section has to do with statutory crimes it is to be liberally interpreted in favor of repose, and ought not to be extended by construction to embrace so-called frauds not so denominated by the statutes creating offenses. United States v. Hirsch, 100 U. S. 33; United States v. Rabinowich, 238 U. S. 78, 87-88; United States v. Noveck, supra; United States v. McElvain, supra. The purpose of the proviso is to apply the six year period to cases “in which defrauding or an attempt to defraud the United States is an ingredient under the statute defining the offense.” United States v. Noveck, supra.

Judgment affirmed.

1

U. S. Code, Supp. V, Title 26, § 1266. “Any . . . person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade' or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall ... be guilty of a felony. . . .”

2

U. S. Code, Supp. Y, Title 18, § 585. “ No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any of the various offenses arising under the internal revenue laws of the United States unless the indictment is found or the information instituted within three years next after the commission of the offense: Provided, That for offenses involving the defrauding or attempting to defraud the United States or any agency thereof, whether by conspiracy or not, and in any manner, the period of limitation shall be six years. . .

3

See U. S. Code, Tit. 26, §§ 261, 306, 316, 555, 667, 775, 843, 1180, 1181, 1184, 1186.

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

Related

Angelia Countryman v. State
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2020
Barbara T. Collins v. HCA Health Services Of Tennessee, Inc.
517 S.W.3d 84 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 2016)
State v. Stephenson
2017 NMSC 002 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 2016)
State v. Stephenson
2015 NMCA 038 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 2015)
United States v. Garcia-Moreno
626 F. Supp. 2d 826 (W.D. Tennessee, 2009)
United States v. Mubayyid
567 F. Supp. 2d 223 (D. Massachusetts, 2008)
United States v. Sorcher
498 F. Supp. 2d 603 (E.D. New York, 2007)
Kirkendall v. Department of the Army
479 F.3d 830 (Federal Circuit, 2007)
United States v. Gremillion-Stovall
397 F. Supp. 2d 798 (M.D. Louisiana, 2005)
Theophile Carty v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General
395 F.3d 1081 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
United States v. City of Toledo, Ohio
63 F. Supp. 2d 834 (N.D. Ohio, 1999)
United States v. Gollapudi
Third Circuit, 1997
United States v. Cunningham
916 F. Supp. 817 (N.D. Illinois, 1996)
State in Interest of JS
642 A.2d 430 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1994)
State v. Bybee
781 P.2d 316 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1989)
United States v. Del Percio
870 F.2d 1090 (Sixth Circuit, 1989)
United States v. Paul M. Phillips
843 F.2d 438 (Eleventh Circuit, 1988)
United States v. John Peter McGoff
831 F.2d 1071 (D.C. Circuit, 1987)
United States v. Coniam
581 F. Supp. 348 (D. Connecticut, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
285 U.S. 518, 52 S. Ct. 416, 76 L. Ed. 917, 1932 U.S. LEXIS 450, 1932 C.B. 211, 10 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1623, 3 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 926, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-scharton-scotus-1932.