Court Opinion

ID: 4499252
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-01-23 18:16:22.347975+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:04:07.527198
License: Public Domain

Phillips,
dissenting: While the transactions recited above are not free of suspicion, I have reached the conclusion, after hearing and weighing the testimony of the witnesses and considering the circumstantial evidence, that the record in this appeal, which is one step in the proceedings to impose a penalty for a criminal act, is insufficient to meet the requirement of the common law that commission of the crime must be established beyond a reasonable doubt.
The transactions, on their face, were regular. The testimony of the parties is that a sale was made and that there was no collateral agreement or secret understanding with respect to the stock. The *1120sales price represented the fair market value of the stock and there is nothing to indicate that Bockus and Martin were unable to meet their notes. In fact, the testimony indicates the contrary. The exaction by Bockus of a commission as a condition of the sale to Martin would not seem unusual if, as taxpayer contends, Bockus was then the owner of the stock, nor are the facts with reference to the subsequent re-acquisition of this stock unusual.
I am unwilling to adjudge this taxpayer guilty of the crime charged on suspicion alone, when the suspicious circumstances in the record are susceptible of an innocent interpretation, and for that reason I must dissent from the conclusion reached.
Trussell concurs in this dissent.