UNITED STATES v. CARROLL.
No. 442.
Argued March 11-12, 1953.
Decided April 27, 1953.
Marvin E. Frankel argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Cummings, Assistant Attorney General Holland, Ellis N. Slack and Joseph M. Howard. Robert L. Stern, then Acting Solicitor General, was on the Statement as to Jurisdiction.
Morris A. Shenker argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief were Bernard J. Mellman and Sidney M. Glazer.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an appeal under the Criminal Appeals Act, 18 U. S. C. § 3731, from an order of the District Court dismissing an indictment. The indictment contains 101 counts. Each count alleges that appellee made payment of a sum in excess of $600 a year to a named individual— some in 1948, some in 1949, and the rest in 1950. The offense charged as to each such payment is a wilful failure to make a return on Treasury Form 1099 in violation of § 145 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, § 5 (c), Current Tax Payment Act of 1943, 57 Stat. 126, 26 U. S. C. § 145 (a).
Section 147 of the Act, as amended by § 202 (c) (3) of the Revenue Act of 1948, 62 Stat. 110, provides that any person making a payment to another of $600 or more in any calendar year “shall render a true and accurate return to the Commissioner, under such regulations and in such form and manner and to such extent as may be prescribed by him with the approval of the Secretary.”
Treasury Regulations 111, § 29.147-1, as amended T. D. 5313, 1944 Cum. Bull. 308, T. D. 5687, 1949-1 Cum. Bull. 9, provides that all persons making any such payment in any calendar year (with exceptions not relevant here) shall make a “return” on Form 1099, “accompanied by transmittal Form 1096 showing the number of returns filed.” Form 1099 is required to be prepared and filed for each payee, showing the name and address of the payee, the kind and amount of income paid, and the name and address of the person making the payment. Form 1099 on its face is called an “Information Return”; and its instructions say that it is to be forwarded “with return Form 1096.” Form 1099 contains no formal declaration by the payor nor any signature by him. Those are provided in Form 1096.
Form 1096 is called “Annual Information Return.” It must be signed by the payor with a statement of the number of reports on Form 1099 which are attached. It contains a declaration that “to the best of my knowledge and belief the accompanying reports on Form 1099” constitute “a true and complete return of payments” of the prescribed character made during the specified calendar year.
Section 145 (a) of the Act provides that any person required by law or regulations “to make a return ... for the purposes of the computation, assessment, or collection of any estimated tax or tax imposed by this chapter, who willfully fails to . . . make such return” shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
The District Court ruled that the “return” specified in § 145 (a) was that provided in Form 1096, not the one provided in Form 1099, and that since the only offenses charged in the 101 counts were failures to file Form 1099 the indictment should be dismissed.
The question is not without difficulty. But we conclude that the District Court reached the correct result.
The “return” required by § 147 (a) is to be made “in such form and manner” as are prescribed in the Regulations. The Regulations provide in § 29.147-1, as we have noted, that a “return shall be made in each case on Form 1099, accompanied by transmittal Form 1096 showing the number of returns filed.” The “form and manner” prescribed therefore seem to consist of the verified Form 1096 together with the Forms 1099. All of them together apparently constitute the “return” referred to in § 147 (a). The various Forms 1099 seem to have the same relation to Form 1096 as schedules have to an ordinary income tax return. Form 1099 supplies the details which underlie Form 1096. That conclusion is supported by the fact that Form 1096 is the only one which is signed and verified.
We hesitate to conclude that a failure to file an unverified schedule is given the same dignity as the failure to file the verified return. We are dealing with criminal sanctions in the complicated, technical field of the revenue law. The code and the regulations must be construed in light of the purpose to locate and check upon recipients of income and the amounts they receive. See S. Rep. No. 103, 65th Cong., 1st Sess. 20. But at the same time every citizen is entitled to fair warning of the traps which the criminal law lays. Where the “return” prescribed is a verified Form 1096 together with all the unverified Forms 1099 it does not seem fair warning to charge a person for more than the failure to make that return. To multiply the crimes by the number of Forms 1099 required to be filed is to revise the regulatory scheme. So far as these information returns are concerned, the purpose of § 145 (a) seems to us to be fulfilled when the sanction is applied only to a failure to file Form 1096.
Affirmed.
We postponed the question of jurisdiction to a hearing on the merits in view of appellee’s contention in his statement opposing jurisdiction that the dismissal was based not only upon the “construction of the statute” within the meaning of the Criminal Appeals Act, 18 U. S. C. § 3731, but also, as respects the first 45 counts, on a question of venue. We do not read the oral opinion of the District Court that way. We think the District Court rested its decision as respects all 101 counts on the construction of the statute. Whether there are other objections to the indictment which might also lead to dismissal is therefore not properly here on this appeal. See United States v. Borden Co., 308 U. S. 188, 193.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.