Record

Case file

1942-12-08

National Archives Catalog, Diaries of Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library

Treasury General Counsel's summary report for October 1942: "William Bioff" (Morgenthau Diaries, Book 594)

The Treasury legal staff's monthly report, sent to Secretary Morgenthau on 8 December 1942, states that Bioff "is presently serving a ten-year sentence as a result of his conviction last year on charges of extortion from moving picture producers."

Date
1942-12-08
Kind
case-file
Retrieved
2026-10-12
NAID
28277176
Rights
A record of the United States Treasury Department, held in the Diaries of Henry Morgenthau, Jr. at the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library. Public domain under 17 U.S.C. § 105. The National Archives catalog marks access and use "Unrestricted."

Book 594 of the Morgenthau Diaries (December 7–8, 1942), read through the National Archives’ extracted text. On diary page 222 a Treasury inter-office communication dated 8 December 1942, “TO Secretary Morgenthau … FROM Mr. Paul,” submits “a summary report of activities and accomplishments carried on by the Legal Staff for the month of October, 1942.” The report begins on page 223.

Item 1 is headed “William Bioff.” It reads: “Bioff is presently serving a ten-year sentence as a result of his conviction last year on charges of extortion from moving picture producers. An indictment is outstanding against him in Los Angeles charging evasion of income tax for the years 1936 and 1937.” It goes on to say that a deficiency letter for 1938 alleging additional tax of $9,200.56 with a 50 per cent fraud penalty was sent to Bioff; that he petitioned the Tax Court but “failed to pay the $10 filing fee”; and that the Tax Court on October 27, 1942, dismissing the proceeding, ruled that it could sustain both the deficiency and the fraud penalty. “Judges Hill and Smith dissented.”

This is the only record opened for this archive that states the length of Bioff’s 1941 sentence. It does not give Browne’s sentence or the verdict date. The Tax Court ruling it describes was not found on CourtListener, and the Los Angeles tax indictment was not found in the National Archives catalog. The OCR of page 223 appears twice in the extracted text; the two readings agree.