U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 1934

United States v. Mellon

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Decided July 6, 1934 · Woolley, Davis, Thompson

71 F.2d 1021; 14 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 376; 1934 U.S. App. LEXIS 3377 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

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.

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision. The 8 that cite it most often are listed here.

United States v. Stanley N. Howell, Warren S. Cochran, Cochran & Howell, a Partnership, Post Cleaners, Thrifty Cleaners (9th Cir. 1963)
United States v. McNinch (4th Cir. 1957)
United States Ex Rel. Roberts v. Western Pac. R. Co. (9th Cir. 1951)
United States Ex Rel. Marcus v. Hess (3d Cir. 1942)
United States Ex Rel. Brensilber v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co. (2d Cir. 1942)
United States ex rel. Ostrager v. New Orleans Chapter, Associated General Contractors (5th Cir. 1942)
United States Ex Rel. Marcus v. Hess (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1941)
United States Ex Rel. Kessler v. Mercur Corp. (2d Cir. 1936)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.