Document: 344 U.S. 43 73 S.Ct. 77 97 L.Ed. 61 UNITED STATESv.BEACON BRASS CO., Inc. et al. No. 30. Argued Oct. 23, 1952. Decided Nov. 10, Mr. Marvin E. Frankel, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Richard Maguire, Boston, Mass., appellees. Justice MINTON delivered the opinion of Court. 1 On March 16, 1951, a one-count indictment was returned in United States District Court Massachusetts against appellees, Beacon Brass Company, corporation, and Maurice Feinberg, its president treasurer. The charged that violation § 145(b) Internal Revenue Code, 40 Stat. 1085, as amended, 26 U.S.C. 145(b), U.S.C.A. appellees had willfully attempted to evade taxes by making false statements Treasury representatives on October 24, 1945, 'for purpose supporting, ratifying, confirming concealing fraudulent incorrect representations made corporate tax return said Co., Inc., fiscal period ending 31, 1944, filed or about January 5, 1945 * *.' Section provides pertinent part: 2 '(A)ny person who attempts any manner defeat imposed this chapter payment thereof, shall, addition other penalties provided law, be guilty felony (Emphasis supplied.) 3 six-year limitation period, 341, 342, 3748(a)(2), applicable offenses under statute, expired charge filing but it not employees 1945. viewed charging separate crimes subsequent representatives, dismissed duplicitous. 4 September 14, second which repeated they 'did wilfully knowingly attempt large part due owing corporation certain representations, at hearing conference before Department, Reference allegedly omitted, instead were additional unreported net income 5 35(A) Criminal 18 80 (1946 ed.) (now (Supp. V) 1001, 1001) makes unlawful 'knowingly make matter within jurisdiction department agency Obviously, times indictments here, three-year 3282, violations statute concluded since deals specifically with statements, Congress must presumed have intended should punishable only 35(A). Therefore, ground failed an offense 145(b). 106 F.Supp. 510. We noted probable States' appeal taken authority 3731, 3731. 6 us two statutes, each proscribes conduct covered other, overlap narrow area illustrated instant case. At least where different proof is required offense, single act transaction may violate more than one criminal statute. v. Noveck, 273 202, 206, 47 71 610; Gavieres States, 220 338, 31 421, 55 489. Unlike 35(A), requires willful effort taxes. crucial section. language outlaws 'in manner' clearly broad enough include income. Cf. Spies 317 492, 499, 63 364, 368, 87 418. question raised decision below whether enacting outlawing all matters agencies thereby exclude from scope 7 do believe require tax-enforcement authorities deal differently methods evasion. By providing sanctions law,' recognized some attempting would statutes well. See Taylor 9 Cir., 179 F.2d 640, 644. Moreover, no distinction between written oral reasoning court equally returns are, course, statements. But Courts Appeals uniformly applied returns. E.g., Gaunt 184 284, 288; supra, pages 643—644. Further support our conclusion can found rejected contention enactment impliedly repealed general perjury insofar oath. Gilliland, 312 86, 93, 95 96, 518, 522, 523, 85 598. Finally, expressly particular contexts, e.g., U.S.C.(Supp. §§ 1010, 1014, negates assumption—which foundation below—that 8 contend acts constitute crime evasion complete when filed. basis contention, seek sustain grounds limitations run, dismissal first res judicata bar same offense. consider these questions because limited review Court's construction light facts alleged indictment. 3731; Borden 308 188, 206—207, 60 182, 191—192, 84 181. judgment reversed, cause remanded further proceedings inconsistent opinion. 10 Reversed. 11 BLACK reached right result affirm judgment.

Category: 0