holding that the Commissioner may use the bank deposits method to establish a deficiency to support a conviction for attempted income tax evasion
How later courts described this case
- holding that the Commissioner may use the bank deposits method to establish a deficiency to support a conviction for attempted income tax evasion
- holding that, while failure to produce records in course of criminal investigation should not be held against a taxpayer, failure to maintain such records is evidence of fraud
- "Where a taxpayer has made numerous deposits in bank accounts, the sources or nature of which are not accounted for or recorded in books and records maintained by him, determinations made by the Commissioner of income subject to tax on the basis of such deposits have been approved in many instances"
- “corrections, redeposits or transfers” must be deducted
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Scott, J., concurring: While I have no disagreement with the holding of the majority, I would not include in the opinion the discussion of the admissibility in a criminal case of incriminating statements made after an investigation had become a criminal investigation by its transfer to the “Intelligence Division.” This discussion is pure dicta. Our case is 'a civil fraud- case and as the majority holds, statements made by a taxpayer under any circumstances are admissible although the circumstances under which the statements were made is likewise admissible as an aid in determining the weight to be given to the statements. Also, the facts here show that the statements involved were made frior to the commencement of any criminal investigation and under the holdings of all the circuit Courts of Appeal which have passed on the question would be admissible even in a criminal case.