Repository: UIHistories Project: Board of Trustees Minutes - 1938 [PAGE 647]

EXTRACTED TEXT FROM PAGE:

1938]

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS

645

person, and later in the course of the hearing, also by his attorney Tyrrell A. Richardson. The respondent raised the question of the jurisdiction of the Committee to hold the hearing, asked for leave to withdraw his general appearance and for leave to enter a special appearance, objected to the giving of testimony of witnesses tendered by complainant, objected to the admissibility of documents offered by complainant, and raised the question of the constitutionality of the section of the Illinois statute under which the hearing was being held, all of which objections were overruled and are hereby reported to the University of Illinois. Respondent asked for leave to file an answer and, leave having been granted, he filed a general answer, which is a part of the record in this matter. During the hearing the respondent actively participated in the proceedings by the cross examination of witnesses. At the conclusion of the session, and on agreement of all interested parties, the hearing was continued to December 10, 1937. On December 2, 1937, respondent moved for a further continuance which motion was denied. On December 7, 1937, respondent again moved for a continuance, which motion was denied. On December 9 an amended motion for a continuance was made by respondent, which motion was likewise denied. On December 10 the hearing reconvened. Complainant appeared by its counsel. Respondent did not appear either by counsel or in person. At the opening of the hearing a notice was served upon the Committee and Counsel for complainant, stating that the respondent would, on that day, December 10, 1937, apply for a temporary injunction in the Circuit Court of Cook County, to restrain defendants from continuing the hearing. Further exhibits offered by complainant were admitted into evidence and the hearing adjourned. The duly authenticated documents and testimony admitted into evidence support the allegations of the complaint. A duly authenticated copy of the indictment against the respondent and another person, consisted of six (6) counts. The first count charged that respondent, "on July 15, 1929, unlawfully and feloniously did then and there wilfully attempt to defeat And evade a large part, to wit $130,767.96, of a tax imposed by an Act of Congress approved May 29, 1928 . . . . known as the Revenue Act of 1928, and the payment thereof on the consolidated net income of the W. J. Newman Company, a corporation, and the W. J. Newman Wrecking Company, a corporation." The second count charged that the respondent and another person, "on September 16, 1929, unlawfully and feloniously did then and there wilfully attempt to defeat and evade an income tax of, to wit, $87,706.87, imposed by an Act of Congress approved May 29, 1928 . . . . known as the Revenue Act of 1928, and the payment thereof on the net income of William J. Newman." The verdict of the jury dated June 15, 1934, found "the defendant Paysoff Tinkoff guilty on counts one and two of the indictment." On July 30, 1934, motion for new trial was overruled and defendant Tinkoff was sentenced to serve a period of eighteen months in a United States Penitentiary. The Circuit Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit upheld this judgment (See Tinkoff v. United States, Oct. 16, 1936, Rehearing denied Jan. I 5, 1937, 86 F. (2d) 868, the opinion therein being attached as an appendix to this report) and a petition for Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States filed by said Paysoff Tinkoff to review said judgment, was denied on May 3, 1937. The evidence further shows that respondent was disbarred from practicing before the Treasury Department of the United States. Hearings began in May 1929 and final order of disbarment was entered on August 29, 1930. Respondent's motion in the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia for a preliminary injunction to restrain the enforcement of the order of his disbarment, was denied, the order of denial being filed January 6, 1931, as of November 24, 1930. From the opinion of the Court in this case it appears that one of the grounds on which the respondent was disbarred was that of unprofessional conduct consisting of the alteration of a bond for $458.64 to $527.80 without the knowledge or approval, of the principal or surety. From the same opinion it also appears that the Secretary of the Treasury found that the respondent was guilty of preparing a false and fraudulent return for one John Griffiths for the year 1925 and that the false item in the return consisted in the claim of a bad debt of $40,000. Respondent's petition for a writ of