*2
GRAAFEILAND,
preparation
New York on the basis
NEW-
Before VAN
and
acts of evasion
KEARSE,
Judges.
of the tax returns
other
Circuit
MAN and
provides:
or where an
Internal Revenue Code
1. Section 3237
offense involves use of the mails and is an
expressly provided
(a) Except as otherwise
in
offense described
section
or
Congress,
any
offense
enactment
(whether
(5)
or
of such Code
or not the
begun
in
dis-
the United States
one
provision
another,
also
in
offense is
described
another
completed in
or committed
trict and
law),
district,
begun
judicial
may
inquired
ain
more than one
judicial
district other
district
district
in which such
continued,
resides,
completed.
may upon
begun,
which the defendant
he
offense was
or
mails,
Any
involving
pros-
filed
offense
motion
district
in which the
transportation
foreign
begun,
in interstate or
com-
ecution is
elect
be tried
merce,
and,
continuing
except
residing
ais
he
the time
district
in which
expressly provided by
otherwise
enactment
alleged
Provid-
offense was committed:
Congress,
inquired
prose-
ed,
twenty
That
the motion is filed within
from,
through,
cuted in
or into
upon
days
arraignment
after
of the defendant
such commerce
mail matter moves.
indictment or information.
(b) Notwithstanding
(a), where an
subsection
described
again
Though
in that District.2
moved to
counts.
accounting
contended that Clemente’s
firm
motion,
Judge
having
granted the
Sand
the returns in the Southern
prepared
Dis- previously
ap-
indicated that §
to his
trict and mailed them
residence in the
plicable
even if a
was not
signing,
represented
District for
Eastern
the indictment. The Government seeks a
*3
that neither the
of the returns nor writ of mandamus to test
the trial court’s
any
other items will be used to establish
construction.
venue in the
District.
Southern
Section
was
to the
added
Criminal
permit
Government read §
1958,
85-595,
Code in
P.L.
72 Stat. 512
in his
to elect trial of tax counts
(1958).
is an exception
3237(a),
to §
only
district of
when a
residence
permits prosecution
which
continuing
of-
used to establish venue elsewhere.
fenses in
district in which the offense
(Hon.
The District
B.
Court
Leonard
continued,
completed.
begun,
Sec-
Sand, Judge) granted
Clemente’s motion
3237(a)
specifically provides
also
transfer venue for the tax
counts
involving
any offense
use of
mails
Eastern District
Judge
of New York.
Sand
continuing
category
offenses
within
concluded that
the tax counts fall within
from,
any district
may
the statutory definition of an
which the mail moves.
through, or into
“involves use of the mails” because in fact
the mails were used in the
activity
course of
that for cer
provides
Section
alleged to be
broad,
unlawful. This
though
option
has an
tain offenses a defendant
arguably literal, reading of the statute has
district of
require prosecution in the
accepted
been
courts,
other district
Unit
in which the
residence. The circumstances
ed
DeMarco,
States v.
F.Supp.
(D.D.
394
611
is de
option
an offense
applies are “where
C.1975); United
Youse,
States v.
387
Reve
scribed in
7203 of the Internal
F.Supp.
(E.D.Wis.1975);
see also United
1954,
nue
an offense
Code of
or where
Turkish,
States v.
874,
458 F.Supp.
878 n.5
involves use of the mails and is an offense
(S.D.N.Y.1978);
Dalitz,
United States v.
7206(1), (2),
described in
section 7201 or
F.Supp.
(S.D.Cal.1965),
though the issue
(5) of such Code .
the tax
. .” Since
appear
does not
to have been
considered
counts of
pending
charge
any appellate court.3 The Government re
Clemente with violations of
7201 and
sponded
§§
superseding indictment,
with a
availability
of the residence
Clemente with all of the
offenses,
option depends
200-209,
upon
same
whether
these
including, in Counts
offenses;
redrafted,
charge
the income tax
counts
an
offense that “involves use
how
ever, the tax counts
omitted
reference
the mails”
meaning
within the
of a tax
3237(b).
return. Clemente
3237(b) applies
case,
Unless
to this
it is
the time of the
offense. United
properly
clear
venue for tax
Slutsky,
832,
offenses is
(2d
States v.
487 F.2d
839 n.9
Cir.
laid in the district
in which
1973),
denied,
937,
the returns were
cert.
416 U.S.
94 S.Ct.
prepared.
Gross,
United States v.
276 F.2d
(1974);
Gross,
office where a return is to filed. We conclude that the “involvement” of a
Finally, 3237(b) the Congress construction of that mails that intended not upon any relies mailing mailing during in the the course of an bare occurrence of a the rejected should be because it course alleged leads of the offense. to bizarre results to unlikely have legislating been in- was an to a venue exception by Congress. tended aIn permitted multi-defendant statute the Government to this, case such as the where Government use the of a into a distant fact alleges the evidence of defendant’s district far from prosecute taxpayer to a racketeering is also evidence of his receipt exception residence. The is a of § income, unreported a transfer of governmental power. the tax shield counts to district of residence would enabling taxpayer not a sword mean that the witnesses would bear prosecution transfer district of to his resi- inconvenience public and the would bear dence where in cases such as this trials, substantially cost two similar wholly Government seeks to establish venue suggests 6. The dissent covers the district of and whose residence I.R.S. residence, least case a like Clemente’s where the office item is located within the district of a mailed was mailing originated tax return sent to the I.R.S. That the ones who mailed the tax return could de- prosecution ended Clemente’s mand residence, to the dis- transfer district of residence, postage trict of and neither it nor other while the ones who saved upon by by nearby relied and delivered the return hand to a prosecution. prosecution venue establish in the district office would face in the district If simply the statute’s were available where their acts of evasion occurred. This anomaly taxpayer triggers because a mailed his return what to an further indicates that residence, I.R.S. office within his district of fact of a is not the then a further anomalous distinction but a nor the nature what is mailed mailing whether by by prose- have been created taxpayers, the statute. Of those is used the Government to Clemente, taxpayer away like who are accused of cute a from his district of resi- committing acts of evasion a district other dence. ferring 200-209 of indictment. Counts stat- any use of mails. The apart from trial, mandate impending has view of taxpayer a who enable ute does not forthwith. other shall issue in a the law district means violated prosecution escape of the mails than use (dissenting): KEARSE, Judge letter. simply by a Circuit
in that district most, apply, We construe § thicket in the lost Lest we remain prosecutions that involve tax planted results hypothetical “bizarre” mailing, sense that whether mails the facts us recall majority, let indictment, is basis not before, us. case prosecution seeks establish on which the has been which Clemente counts on taxpayer’s venue other than in district knowingly counts of five include indicted Under this construc- district of residence.7 re- false income making signing statute, motion to Clemente’s tion of of 26 U.S.C. § in violation turns tax counts should transfer venue of the re- using those false five counts have been denied. taxes in violation evade income turns to of 7201. ap this is conclude that We also writ of a the first
propriate for the issuance government, relying case 3237(a),1 the District Court’s mandamus to correct 18 U.S.C. § paragraph 3237(b). The construction of District or not mails whether (irrespective of discretion, district purport Court did exercise used) allows are counts. committed, the tax obliged but felt to transfer continued where a crime power created beyond This transfer was commenced completed, York, by Congress. Correction mandamus of New District in the Southern prepared the United especially appropriate here since were returns where Clemente’s appellate re secure cannot otherwise by his accountant. ruling. Cf. view District Court’s has submitted Clemente Meanor,-U.S.-,-, Helstoski v. stating that he believes court an affidavit (1979); United 99 S.Ct. 61 L.Ed.2d *6 filed were with question the returns in (2d Cir.), Weinstein, 622 511 F.2d States by mail.2 the IRS denied, 45 cert. 95 S.Ct. U.S. “Notwithstanding 3237(b) says Section (1975). L.Ed.2d 693 of- . where an (a), . subsection an mails is of the involves use directing fense A mandamus will issue writ of or section described in trans- offense vacate its the District Court to order expressly Although government nowhere the not 7. Since in this case the Government does relies, provision is it rely any it venue states on what item to on the of establish paragraph of first taxpayer’s on the clear that relies the venue in a district other than First, support the residence, 3237(a). of venue in unnecessary in § to decide district of it is prepared, the returns were district in which the available when whether the statute would be only upholding such government cases cites to on the seeks establish venue n.*), g., 3237(a) (Brief e. at 8 any mailing only under § basis of venue the basis or on the of (2d Slutsky, F.2d a I.R.S. latter an office the The denied, 1973), by Congress, 94 S.Ct. contemplated 416 U.S. cert. is Cir. situation the one ap (1974). does not It place 40 L.Ed.2d in the and is the one which the where supports any by venue pear other section that conve- is received is determined Second, government’s single locating fact. I.R.S. this nience of the Government in the Govern offices, instant case by states: “[I]n in brief rather than the defendant’s choice paragraph rely second selecting on the ment does wishes to corre- those whom he (Brief 3237(a) If, spond. 3237(a), for venue pursuant Section could §to 9; emphasis added.) by mailing a mail- be established other than office, ques- ing open an an it remains I.R.S. by 3237(b), Congress enacting given affidavit tion whether in is to Clemente’s 2. Credence prosecu- avoid intended let tax defendants fact for they into mailed as means in a district which used tion distant mails were violating I.R.S. item not addressed statutes. Provided, 7206(1),” ted : That the filed has the motion is defendant days having twenty arraignment within after venue of those offenses transfer- upon red to the in indictment or infor- district which he resided at defendant added.) (Emphasis time of the offense. mation.” At the time the in question returns were present In the case there context filed, in Clemente lived the Eastern Dis- nothing about ambiguous Subsec- York, trict of New and he has moved to (a) government cer- plainly gives have venue of the tax counts transferred choosing the district tain latitude in to that district. any of- to commence view, my majority’s decision begun in one fense that was venue must remain Southern District The continued or concluded another. by warranted the language neither (a) paragraphs two of subsection ensure statute, legislative nor history. regardless latitude whether or not offense use of the mails. Equally involves I. The Language of the Statute plainly, if the did involve use of offense question commonly statute in here is enumerated, mails and of those sub- is one “continuing statute, known as the offense” (b) gives a limited provides U.S.C. supersede the choice of district follows: (a). given the under government subsection “(a) Except expressly as otherwise pro- (b), The introductory of subsection vided Congress, enactment of any of- (a),” per- “Notwithstanding subsection fense the United begun in fectly requires provisions that the clear: it one completed another, district and or (b) conflicting applied spite district, may committed in more than one (a). provision apparent or obstacle found in be inquired prosecuted of and dis- government argues that since it trict in which begun, such venue, not relied on we establish continued, completed. should be- merely not allow “Any involving the use of the way.” cause mailing is “involved some mails, or transportation in interstate or (Brief 9-10.) Since it is clear that the foreign commerce, is a continuing offense government rely on the para- does first and, except as expressly otherwise pro- graph venue,3 3237(a) argument vided of Congress, enactment may be is, effect, option given defend- inquired of in any district (b) ant in is not available if the from, through, into which such com- (a). relies paragraph on the first merce or mail matter moves. Thus, *7 “Notwithstanding sub- instead of “(b) Notwithstanding (a), subsection (a),” section have us government where an is described in section 3237(b) read provided if it “Notwith- as 7203 of the Internal Revenue Code of standing paragraph the second of subsec- 1954,or where an offense involves use of (a).” (b)’s introductory Subsection the mails and is an offense described in written, phrase however, obviously as con- (2), (5) or or of such tains no such limitation. (whether Code not the offense is also provision described in law), another majority equivalent The achieves prosecution begun judicial is in a by amendment contended for means district judicial other phrase district in different First it finds the route. resides, the defendant he may upon “where an offense involves use of motion filed in the district in which the mails” because it ambiguous is broad begun, is elect enough hypothetical tried in to cover a number of the district in which he residing Then, legis- was relying constructs. on certain the time the alleged offense below, was commit- lative history, it elects to discussed supra.
3. See note 1 re- Judiciary The committee Committees. pro- reading it phrase, it if narrow that recommending passage focused ports involves use of the vided “where an offense distance.4 problem for establish- principally such use is basis mails and . ing . .” “Testimony a subcommittee before Judiciary revealed on the the Committee Clemente, Given the claimed procedures, defend- current that under use of applicability of “involves and tax-fraud tax-evasion ants certain While the word hardly is unclear. mails” judicial prosecuted in a often cases are broad, is the use of the mails “involves” distant from the dis- substantially district quite obviously encompassed here is causes a they reside. This in which trict interpretation: the income tax reasonable which is more upon them heavy burden vio returns which the contends easily borne and more appropriately 7206(1) 7201 and were mailed to lated §§ the prosecution. alleged tax the IRS. Without doubt the return to offenses fense involves use of the Indeed, contended not be difficult to fails at least the case sive return mailed unnecessary. defendant’s DeMarco, means the ification of order to 1975) Given legislative history (emphasis present justify in other cases the countermand all that the lack of here “involved” use of the mails. IRS.” mailing by imagine allegedly Even that case, F.Supp. language confronting added). majority’s E. phrase that it does not include ambiguity the transfer of venue. g., fraudulent of the section majority’s the IRS. of subsection history, While this government has “ mails’ taxpayer 614-15 ‘where the of effective mod- us, means, where the and eva however, resort (D.D.C. of his (b) 2d Sess. (1958); H.R.Rep.No. Code mended content no both too to the district but siderable home.” brought in the defendants’ nue. “Therefore, geographic “The language of Cong. rather in the congressional [*] frequently accord, S.Rep.No. Often that 1-2 (and all committee recommend distance & defendants: (1958), [*] the committee enacted), Admin.News, director proximity subsection district most 85th reprinted [*] prosecutions is of the from the defendant’s committees giving however, contained Cong., 2d of internal [*] may pp. restrictions, as home districts (b) as recom- opinion that 85th [1958] convenient [*] be a con- appeared are not Sess. Cong., reve- view U.S. [*] II. cuted in a district remote from his home taxpayer simply to that district. Section duced as H.R. As the enactment of stated because Legislative he had mailed his tax return majority, History to avoid 85th Cong., was to being prose- was intro- chief 1st Sess. give goal Admin.News H.R.Rep.No. to be tried in resided at supra at should committed, if the defendant should the time the p. be a the district [1958] supra at he matter of discretion.” so U.S.Code chooses, alleged offense have the 2; in which he S.Rep.No. Cong. & right report in either suggestion by Rep. Georgia. Prince Preston There was no *8 option to transfer It the defendant’s was enacted in the form recommended that govern- the exercisable unless Representatives the Senate House of would and Judiciary, Cong., congressmen 2d Sess. 4. mittee on the 85th The distances which the dis- 11, 12, 1958) (unpublished). (Apr. One the cussed in House subcommittee varied con- Texas, siderably, great representative not a that distance was the in observed from distances imagined Georgia, problem and another the in in California intermediate distances problem Id. Washington, New York. at not a in scant 40 miles between D.C. and that was Baltimore, Maryland. Hearings on H.R. 15-16. Before 4 of Com- Subcommittee No. the House district, changed ment relied on his home made venue in establish venue.5 mandatory. his home district only elaboration the “in- volves use was description of the mails” the statement, At above the time of the H.R. permitting of the bill as the defendant to provided where an in- offense have transferred to his home district mails, certain volves the use of offenses, with the statement that “The of- (1) only “the bemay offense fenses the covered are use of the mails to in the the district in which defendant was commit acts in described sections 7201 . the was com- residing at the time 7206(1),(2), (5) and . . . .” H.R. mitted if such mail matter has moved 1; Rep.No. 1890, supra S.Rep.No. at through . . . .” that district supra News at at p. [1958] U.S.Code (Emphasis Cong. added.) & Admin. Hearings, supra (1958). (Emphasis at 26; see 104 added.) This was Cong.Rec. a vital Amend- difference because Sixth Notwithstanding support this in the com- gives ment to the Constitution a defendant mittee reports interpreting “involves right in the district in which to be tried use of the apply mails” to to Clemente’s use allegedly the crime was committed. Since offenses, mails to commit the original required venue H.R. 8252 the majority into (b) reads subsection district, in the the Trea- defendant’s home condition option that the transfer is availa- sury Department had attacked bill as ble only to a defendant if the constitutionally expressly It was flawed.7 venue, uses mailing to establish relying aon response Represent- attacks that to these statement Representative Preston as fol- ative Preston his view that stated lows: ingredient would be an essential of the of- “The bill would not cover situations charged, repeatedly fense cited that where the the mails is not an portion expressly bill which ingredient of charged.” the offense conditioned movement of the mail venue on Hearings on H.R. Before Subcommit- through home the defendant’s district. For tee No. 4 of the House Committee on the example, Representative the text of Pre- Judiciary, Cong., 85th 2d (Apr. Sess. 6 surrounding language ston’s statement 1958) (unpublished) (hereinafter “Hear- majority relied on is as follows: ings”).6 statement, however, This bill, drafted, H.R. “[T]his made in support Representative Pre- provide that where use of the mails is which, ston’s original merely bill instead of ingredient of an un- giving a to have der venue the sections of Internal Revenue 6. The the bill following offense is another ant has the venue transfer “whether or not the offense is also ment to Indeed, Congress 26.) sixth where the sis mails are where the rely “Article “ Section therein, quoting Hearings, ‘. Treasury Department’s government’s on 26 pointed amendment provision escape . .” statement “described *9 III, used 3237(b) provides (Government U.S.C. out: of law.” effect of § brief in addition by Representative is an essential element did not allow the §§ 7201 or in” offenses under the Constitution secure occurs one of those brief at involved where the clause letter 3237(b) by failing in his district’ 7206(1), (2), whenever the supra described objecting the defend- 16, empha- quotes sections, Preston: and the statutes govern- at 25- Letter from Dan 3264. Secretary, [1958] 1958), possibility in the district rather such crime not would be held dence and in which district been contravene instances, some persons judicial reprinted been returned legislation.” performed. committed. U.S.Code instances, State and district to Hon. Emanuel Celler shown to accused these null proposed in which the accused resides Throop Cong. S.Rep.No. Consequently, and void with of crimes provisions. is not have been committed in under which the would seem to & Smith, Deputy proposed legislation Admin.News clear which a crime has defendant’s that, unlawful authority right respect Indeed, there is a supra legislation (April does not in some be laid to trial resi- to a act p.
85 Preston’s view. bill, Representative hint specified in the of 1954 as Code 1890, supra; S.Rep.No. H.R.Rep.No. prosecuted must be in the dis- resides, the constitutional supra. importantly, Most if the mail mat- trict which he Representative Preston ad- passed through that dis- that ter involved has flaw eliminated, congress- as the dressing was trict to make home district men decided situations “The bill would not cover mandatory (Hearings, optional rather not an of the mails is where the use underpin- 23-24), linguistic supra at t charged. If ingredient the offense the constitu- cure for ning of the Preston attempted to cover such the bill [sic] flaw, e., that original condition i. situations, defend- tional by requiring tha [sic] through the has moved matter of their the “mail ants be residence, district,” although part was deleted. no of the there, the bill would occurred view of constitutionality Statute Interpretation doubtful Judicial sixth amendment Constitu- plain, light surprisingly, Not tion.” history language of § broád added); Hearings, supra (emphasis 6 see before and amendments descriptions 3-6, also id. at 25-26. dealt enactment, which has every court to transfer motion why Representa- timely with a many There are reasons or 7201 mailing described §§ that must the offenses tive Preston’s statement where (5), granted the transfer 3237(b) to or has ingredient be an for § essential by the defend was claimed implication may be use of the mails apply8 whatever —and ant, or not regardless of whether found therein that must of the mails relied on use rely ap- government for that subsection v. De First, venue. See United States ply sway.9 Repre- establish not hold —should (D.D.C.1975),peti Marco, imputed F.Supp. 394 611 sentative Preston’s view cannot opinion denied without tion for mandamus as a Even before the whole. Youse, 387 v. (D.C.Cir.); United States bill was the Preston view was amended (E.D.Wis.1975); United States rejected 132 F.Supp. at least one member of the Dalitz, (S.D.Cal.1965); F.Supp. 238 he testi- v. 248 House Subcommittee before which Rosenberg, F.Supp. 226 sup- v. Representative Dowdy, fied. who United States Wort (S.D.Fla.1964); States v. ported bill, said, United “I not consider 199 do 10 man, (E.D.Ill.1960); 26 192 mailing an in this F.R.D. element offense.” Kimble, F.Supp. 616 addition, v. neither the House nor the Senate United States Judiciary any (S.D.N.Y.1960).11 reports Committee contained them, go they value, “They prepare supposition Taken at face in their own and mail them the Post Office essential element the offenses tax district.” fraud tax evasion is meritless. Mail- may Hearings, supra ing not be the means of commit- certainly ting legally offense. Indeed, supra Representa- Hearings, at 8. essential to its See United States commission. suggested Dowdy that reference to tive Kimble, F.Supp. (S.D.N.Y.1960). v. Id. be omitted. majority Representative 9. The concludes Preston, although responding conspiracy to the constitu- charge been 11. Where objection, assuring taxes, tional was nevertheless his held that a have some courts evade colleagues charges did all of- bill not cover is not of such right, fenses in which a occurred. Whether discretion lies within the matter of but correct, Representative court, conspiracy or not this conclusion is is not one since See, g., Preston mail- 3237(b). seemed certain at least e. United listed in § crimes ing (S.D.N.Y. Ostrer, F.Supp. a defendant of his tax return would be v. Turkish, F.Supp. covered: 1978); contrary “[Tjhis (S.D.N.Y. 1978). view large bill to serve Rosenberg, majority su people re- taken in United States who mail their F.Supp. pra, at 201. turns.
86 rejected just
These
Illinois was
9
unanimously
cases have
miles from
court-
Illinois,
the arguments urged
government
of
house
the Eastern District
Kimble,
here.
In United
v.
for ex-
forum;
States
original
venue as
that defendant
contended,
ample,
inter
District
transferred
Southern
alia,
3237(b)
had
defendant
a §
Illinois in
the courthouse was 100
if
“the
alleges
indictment
felt it had
miles from his home. The court
the mails and residence of the defendant
“no alternative” but to transfer:
a district other than
which the in-
Congress apparently
provide
“The
did not
dictment
is
at
F.Supp.
found.”
determining
the courts with discretion
government’s
court found the
conten-
the facts
under which
or circumstances
rather,
justified;
be
Con-
“obviously Charges
unsound.
given
gress intended that defendants
of the nature here involved can
suffi-
right
alleged
for
the absolute
to be tried
ciently
alleging
without
either the
violation
enumerated
of the sections
means
which the acts were accom-
(b) of
in the dis-
paragraph
Section 3237
plished or the residence of the defendant
regardless
trict of their residence
at
time they
were accomplished.
distance involved.”
These matters are not elements of these
Id.
allowed
Transfers have been
offenses and consequently they need not
charges
many
to some
one of
not likely
are
included
Tarnopol,
defendants.
United
v.
See
States
indictment or information.”
1977) (86-count,
(3d
F.2d
Cir.
Id. at 618.
charging
seven-defendant
mail
Some
required
transfers
crimes;
fraud and other
court noted
have,
regrettably,
§
resulted in inef-
against one
tax evasion counts
For example,
ficiencies.
venue as
two
pursuant
had been
transferred
defendants
falsifying,
with
or aid-
Newark,
Jersey,
from
New
Southern
ing another to falsify, the same
income
York).
District
New
return
been
separate
transferred
passed
More than two decades have
since
home districts of each defendant. United Congress
3237(b), and until now
enacted
Rosenberg, supra,
v.
F.Supp.
all
uniformly
courts have
felt com-
200;
DeMarco,
United States
supra,
394 pelled to
apply
statute
accordance
F.Supp. at 614-18. Transfers have been
plain
language.
with
Al-
breadth
its
though
allowed even
the distance between
though
binding
none
of these decisions
defendant’s residence and the
us,12 they
significant,
are
nonetheless
forum is
Kimble,
small. United States v.
during
period Congress
no
has evinced
supra,
F.Supp.
(transfer
at 616-17
from
straightfor-
dissatisfaction with the courts’
(Southern
York)
Manhattan
District of New
application of the
language.
ward
While
to Brooklyn (Eastern District of New
many
congressional
circumstances
inaction
York));
v. Wortman, supra,
significance,
be of
since it
little
(transfer
mails need not Mack CORPORATION MACK TRUCK Kimble, (I960)); the distance supra Inc., 78-2516. Appellant in No. Trucks, between the defendant’s residence and Nos. 78-2516 —78-2520. government need not district chosen Appeals, United States Court great (id.); may even that the transfer Third Circuit. enlarge a de- greatly the distance between Argued Aug. and the situs of trial fendant’s residence Wortman, (United (I960)); supra 16, 1979. Decided Oct. with tax that co-defendants respect
fraud with to the same return sep- districts for transferred different
arate, (United duplicative trials States v. had, (1964)). They
Rosenberg, supra it
short, applied broadly, the statute as was
written. early applying
If these decisions § terms
in accordance with breadth intent, contrary surely
were Congress’
Congress could have been relied in 1966 simple adjustment necessary
to make the statutory language
narrow the when was
amending very subsection. foregoing
For all of the reasons I
deny petition for mandamus. prosecutions 85-595, amended the statute As enacted 72 Stat. 512. Act for tax evasion under 26 U.S.C. fraud under 26 U.S.C. Aug. § 3237(b) applied extend its 6, 1958, coverage Pub.L.No. reprinted in scribed S. Rep.No. failure Pub.L.No. 3680-81. 26 U.S.C. [1966] file 89-713, 89th a tax U.S.Code Cong., return, Cong. 2d Sess. Act of Stat. which is & Ad.News 1108; Nov. (1966), pro- see