United States v. Noveck
Headline: Perjury tied to a tax return is time-barred when the general perjury law lacks a fraud element, and the Court affirms quashing the overdue charge against the taxpayer.
Holding: The Court held that perjury charged under the general perjury statute, without an element showing intent to defraud the United States, is governed by the shorter prosecution time limit and was too late to prosecute.
- Prevents using a fraud allegation to extend prosecution time limits for general perjury counts.
- Affirms that overdue perjury charges tied to tax returns can be dismissed if time limits expired.
Summary
Background
A person was indicted on November 5, 1923, for allegedly committing perjury on March 13, 1920, when signing an income tax return. The indictment accused the defendant of understating tax and income figures (listing $1,484.84 tax on $16,251.66 income instead of $45,664.91 tax on $124,127.13), and it separately alleged the statement was made "for the purpose of defrauding the United States." The district court dismissed (quashed) that first count as barred by the applicable time limit for bringing criminal charges.
Reasoning
The central question was whether the special six-year time limit for offenses that involve "defrauding the United States" applied to this perjury count. The Court explained that the general perjury statute (§125) does not itself make intent to defraud an element of the crime. An allegation of a purpose to defraud can be treated as extra matter that need not be proved. The Court refused to read the limitations provision as creating a new class of perjury or a new crime simply by adding a fraud allegation. Because the perjury statute does not include defrauding the United States as an element, the longer six-year period could not be used to save the prosecution.
Real world impact
The decision means prosecutors cannot extend the time to bring a perjury prosecution by merely alleging the defendant intended to defraud the United States unless the statute defining the crime actually includes that fraud element. The lower court’s dismissal of the overdue perjury count was affirmed, leaving the defendant free of that charge.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?