241 F.2d 717 - United States v. Singer — 241 F.2d 717

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 1993

3 federal appellate · 1 district ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1See also, 19 F.R.D. 90.

¶2Joseph Leary Delaney, Delaney & Donoghue, New York City, for defendant-appellant.

¶3Paul W. Williams, U. S. Atty. for the Southern Dist. of New York, New York City (Alan W. Richenaker, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, of counsel), for appellee.

¶4Before CLARK, Chief Judge, MEDINA, Circuit Judge, and SMITH, District Judge.

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6This is an appeal from concurrent sentences imposed by Judge Bootle on a jury verdict of guilty on three counts of transportation of stolen motor vehicles in interstate commerce. It was conceded that the vehicles were stolen and that they were transported by appellant in interstate commerce. The sole issue, knowledge by appellant that they were stolen, was decided against appellant by the jury.

¶7Appellant claims that admission in evidence of his income tax return was plain error which may be noticed under F.R.Cr.P. Rule 52(b), 18 U.S.C. He makes the claim in spite of a statement by his counsel at the time, of no objection to its admission. He bases the claim on a contention that such use of returns is prohibited by the Internal Revenue Code. We find no error in the admission of the return. The use of the return in such litigation, pursuant to regulation, is contemplated by the statute I.R.C. 1939, Sec. 55(a) (1), 26 U.S.C. § 55 (a) (1), and is sanctioned by Treasury Regulation T.C. 4945, 26 C.F.R. 458.204, continued in effect by the 1954 I.R.C. Sec. 7807, 26 U.S.C. § 7807. The manner of its use, for the purpose of impeachment, was proper. United States v. Lowe, 3 Cir., 234 F.2d 919, certiorari denied 352 U.S. 838, 77 S.Ct. 59, 1 L.Ed. 2d 56.

¶8Affirmed.