Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
UNITED STATES of America, on the relation of Albert R. KNIGHT, and Albert R. Knight, on His Own Behalf, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. William L. MELLON, Defendant-Appellee; SAME v. H. L. STONE; SAME v. Gale R. NUTTY; SAME v. F. A. LEOVY; SAME v. W. J. GUTHRIE; SAME v. George S. DAVISON, 1934 — 71 F.2d 1021 · caselaw · US
Tax
UNITED STATES of America, on the relation of Albert R. KNIGHT, and Albert R. Knight, on His Own Behalf, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. William L. MELLON, Defendant-Appellee; SAME v. H. L. STONE; SAME v. Gale R. NUTTY; SAME v. F. A. LEOVY; SAME v. W. J. GUTHRIE; SAME v. George S. DAVISON
71 F.2d 1021·United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·1934
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
UNITED STATES of America, on the relation of Albert R. KNIGHT, and Albert R. Knight, on His Own Behalf, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. William L. MELLON, Defendant-Appellee. SAME v. H. L. STONE. SAME v. Gale R. NUTTY. SAME v. F. A. LEOVY. SAME v. W. J. GUTHRIE. SAME v. George S. DAVISON
Nos. 5386-5391.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
July 6, 1934.
Wm. A. Gray, of Philadelphia, Pa., and Morris L. Marcus, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellants.
William Watson Smith, of Pittsburgh, Pa., E. L. Batts, of Austin, Tex., and Leon E. Hickman and Smith, Buchanan, Scott & Gordon, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellees.
Before WOOLLEY, DAVIS, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
These are qui tarn actions wherein the plaintiff, alleging fraud in the defendants’ income tax returns, seeks to recover for the United States and for himself statutory penalties and twiee the amount of the alleged unpaid taxes. The defendants interposed statutory demurrers, raising two questions:
(a) Do the statutes of the United States authorize a qui tarn action to recover against one who has defrauded the United States by making a false income tax return; and
(b) Under the statutes of the United States is it necessary to obtain the permission of the Commissioner of Internal Eevenue before commencing a qui tarn action of the character indicated?
The District Court, finding against the plaintiff and against the United States, entered judgments for the defendants. These appeals followed. Por a statement of the cases, citation of statutes, and a full discussion of the law we refer to the opinion of the learned trial judge. 4 P. Supp. 947. As his opinion contains complete and correct answers to the questions involved, we adopt it as our own and accordingly affirm the judgments from which these appeals were taken.