Warde H. Erwin and Mary Lou Erwin v. Ralph C. Cranquist, District Director of Internal Revenue

Good Law
253 F.2d 26
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 19, 195815620_1California411 words

Opinion

Opinion

Appellants sued to recover various penalties assessed against them, including •one for failure to file a declaration of estimated tax on time. The basis for this claim is that § 58 Title 26 U.S.C. (1939 R.C.), requiring declaration of estimated tax by individuals, is unconstitutional and void, as is also that part of § 294 of the same Code, which prescribes penalties for failure to file such declaration or pay the installments thereof.

Appellant says § 58 is unconstitutional: (a) because when the return is required (April 15) there has been no income. All taxpayer has is a guess as to what the income for the year will be; and since there is then no income, the tax is not authorized by the Sixteenth Amendment; hence such a tax cannot be ■collected for it is not apportioned as required by Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601 , 15 S.Ct. 912 , 39 L.Ed. 1108 ; (b) because it violates the Fifth Amendment in requiring self-incrimination, and also because its requirement of a “guess” by the taxpayer imports fatal uncertainty into the law; •and (c), because the same requirement of .a “guess”, under pains of perjury, -amounts to an unreasonable search and seizure contrary to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.