1. Appellee was indicted on 101 counts under § 145(a) of the
Internal Revenue Code, as amended, for willful failure to file
"returns" on Treasury Form 1099 covering 101 payments in excess of
$600 made to a named individual. Under Treasury Regulations 111, §
29.147-1, such forms are not required to be signed, but are to be
filed "with return Form 1096" signed by the payor.
Ibid.
The "return" specified in § 145(a) is that provided in Form 1096,
not the one provided in Form 1099, and, since the only offenses
charged in the 101 counts were failures to file Form 1099, the
indictment was properly dismissed. Pp.
345 U. S.
458-460.
2. This direct appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3731 from a decision of
a Federal District Court dismissing the indictment is properly
before this Court, because the District Court rested its decision
on the "construction of the statute." Whether there are other
objections to the indictment, such as questions of venue, which
might also lead to dismissal is not properly before this Court on
this appeal. P.
345 U. S. 459,
footnote.
Affirmed.
The District Court dismissed an indictment of appellee on 101
counts under § 145 of the Internal Revenue Code. On direct appeal
to this Court under 18 U.S.C. § 3731,
affirmed, p.
345 U. S.
460.
Page 345 U. S. 458
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 willful 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.
Page 345 U. S. 459
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.
Page 345 U. S. 460
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,
308 U. S.
193.