United States v. Thompson

Second Circuit

United States v. Thompson

338 F.2d 997

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 20, 1964

DocketNo. 183, Docket 28931

StatusPublished

This text of 338 F.2d 997 (United States v. Thompson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second 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. Thompson, 338 F.2d 997 (2d Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm in open court. The case was tried without a jury and the basic issue was whether the trial judge would believe appellant’s somewhat fantastic testimony to the general effect that an “accountant,” since deceased, had told him there was a “ten year plan” by which contractors such as appellant could lawfully refrain from filing income tax returns for a period of ten years by simply informing the Internal Revenue Service of an intent to adopt the plan. The trial judge did not believe appellant’s testimony. The finding of guilt was also based on other proof indicating that the failure to file the returns was wilful. The claims of variance and alleged newly discovered evidence do not merit discussion.

Affirmed in open court.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm in open court. The case was tried without a jury and the basic issue was whether the trial judge would believe appellant’s somewhat fantastic testimony to the general effect that an “accountant,” since deceased, had told him there was a “ten year plan” by which contractors such as appellant could lawfully refrain from filing income tax returns for a period of ten years by simply informing the Internal Revenue Service of an intent to adopt the plan. The trial judge did not believe appellant’s testimony. The finding of guilt was also based on other proof indicating that the failure to file the returns was wilful. The claims of variance and alleged newly discovered evidence do not merit discussion.

Affirmed in open court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

338 F.2d 997, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-thompson-ca2-1964.