Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/409/814/120873/
Timestamp: 2020-01-29 11:05:34
Document Index: 685575432

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 287', '§ 6072', '§ 6072', '§ 1001', '§ 287', '§ 80', '§ 5438', '§ 1001', '§ 287', '§ 1']

Kenneth A. Kercher, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee, 409 F.2d 814 (8th Cir. 1969) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Eighth Circuit › 1969 › Kenneth A. Kercher, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee
Kenneth A. Kercher, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee, 409 F.2d 814 (8th Cir. 1969)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit - 409 F.2d 814 (8th Cir. 1969) April 25, 1969
Apart from the issue of the defendant's intent, the basic facts are in no real dispute. Some are stipulated. We necessarily read the record in the light most favorable to the government as the prevailing party in the trial court. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S. Ct. 457, 86 L. Ed. 680 (1942); Coil v. United States, 343 F.2d 573, 575 (8 Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 821, 86 S. Ct. 48, 15 L. Ed. 2d 67.
None of these contentions helps the defendant. Clearly, on this record, the issue of the criminal intent, which § 287 obviously requires, McCoy v. United States, 169 F.2d 776, 783 (9 Cir. 1948), cert. denied, 335 U.S. 898, 69 S. Ct. 298, 93 L. Ed. 433, is for the jury. Our above recital of testimony so demonstrates. Whatever may have been the arrangement between Kercher and the respective taxpayers relative to the preparation and filing of 1966 returns in 1967 (a matter, as we have emphasized, which is not the subject of the indictment), every one of the taxpayers named in the conviction counts testified that he did not file the 1967 return Kercher prepared in his name, did not authorize its filing, and did not even know of its filing. The witness-taxpayers' testimony would establish that the blank powers of attorney were intended for the tax year 1966 and not 1967. And there are additional factors: the defendant's acquisition and continued possession of each taxpayer's 1967 W-2 form; his failure to deliver a copy thereof to the taxpayer; the nonexistence of any incapacity or absence on the part of the taxpayer, a status the IRS power form assumes; the failure to attach the power to the filed return; the blank character of the power; a handwriting expert's testimony that, in his opinion, the signatures affixed to the returns by the defendant were simulations of the true signatures; and the lame excuse that the signatures were affixed because the time to file the returns was running short (although the 1967 returns were not due until April 15, 1968, § 6072(a) of the 1954 Code, 26 U.S.C. § 6072(a)). The jury just did not believe Kercher's story that the powers were intentionally in blank in order to make them available for use for calendar 1967 as well as 1966 and were so understood by the taxpayers. With this conflict, authorization and intent clearly were for the jury. Fowler v. United States, 352 F.2d 100, 110 (8 Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 907, 86 S. Ct. 887, 15 L. Ed. 2d 663.
"The character of the claim — that is to say, whether true, genuine, and honest, or false, fictitious, and fraudulent — must be determined in view of all of the facts and circumstances attending it. If it be originally forged, or otherwise fraudulently concocted, its presentation for payment, with knowledge of the facts, must necessarily be fictitious and fraudulent. Every whit as much so is a similar demand based upon a claim originally valid, but which the party presenting the claim knows has theretofore been paid, and is no longer a subsisting, honest, and just demand, or which he knows he is wholly unauthorized to present and demand or receive any money on." (Emphasis supplied.) Dimmick v. United States, 116 F. 825, 828 (9 Cir. 1902), cert. denied, 189 U.S. 509, 23 S. Ct. 850, 47 L. Ed. 923.
Also relevant is United States v. Branker, 395 F.2d 881, 889 (2 Cir. 1968). See United States v. Neifert-White Co., 390 U.S. 228, 233, 88 S. Ct. 959, 19 L. Ed. 2d 1061 (1968), and Smith v. United States, 214 F.2d 305 (6 Cir. 1954).
The defense's final suggestion that, in any event, the prosecution should have been under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the false statement statute, rather than under § 287, takes us nowhere. Sections 287 and 1001 are both derived from 18 U.S.C. § 80, 1940 edition, and from R.S. § 5438. Even if § 1001 were the applicable statute, the fact that the indictment counts refer to § 287 would be immaterial and not ground for reversal "if the error * * * did not mislead the defendant to his prejudice." Criminal Rule 7(c). See also Williams v. United States, 168 U.S. 382, 389, 18 S. Ct. 92, 42 L. Ed. 509 (1897); United States v. Hutcheson, 312 U.S. 219, 229, 61 S. Ct. 463, 85 L. Ed. 788 (1941); Paz Morales v. United States, 278 F.2d 598, 599-600 (1 Cir. 1960); Guith v. United States, 230 F.2d 481, 482 (9 Cir. 1956); Masi v. United States, 223 F.2d 132, 133-134 (5 Cir. 1955), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 919, 76 S. Ct. 208, 100 L. Ed. 805. There is nothing to indicate that this defendant was misled or confused by the statutory reference in each count. There can be no contention, and none is made, that Kercher did not know the nature of the indictment's charges.
We may have had in this case, initially, an element of youthful overassumption and certainly of very poor judgment. But, as Mr. Justice Holmes said, now almost a half century ago, "Men must turn square corners when they deal with the Government." Rock Island, A. & L. R. R. v. United States, 254 U.S. 141, 143, 41 S. Ct. 55, 56, 65 L. Ed. 188 (1920).
The powers employed were of various types. They included IRS Form 935 ("Power of attorney — individual return or declaration"), authorized by Treas. Regs. § 1.6012-1(a) (5) (1967) for situations of illness, absence or good cause, with the return then to be accompanied by the power or, in some instances, by a certified copy thereof; IRS Form 2848 ("General power of attorney"); IRS Form 2848-A ("Limited power of attorney"); and a private form, "valid from this day for a year," pledging "my income tax refund" to Datamatic and Kenneth A. Kercher "to secure a debt" and authorizing either of them "to sign this refund check." Each was signed by the taxpayer concerned but the government forms, except for naming Kercher, were in blank and uninformative as to the tax year or any specific authority granted or limitation imposed
Count I $ 56.06 Count II 4.44 Count VI 8.46 Count VII 44.14 Count VIII 81.76 Count IX 46.36 Count X 102.18