MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the Court.The statute of limitations on the felony of willfully attempting to evade federal income taxes requires the Government to obtain an indictment for that offense within six years of the date of its commission, with the proviso:". . .  Where a complaint is instituted before a commissioner of the United States within the period above limited, the time shall be extended until the Page 381 U. S. 216 date which is 9 months after the date of the making of the complaint before the commissioner of the United States. . . ."Internal Revenue Code of 1954, § 6531.  On April 15, 1963, the day before the six-year period was to expire, the Government filed a complaint against petitioner Jaben charging him with willfully filing a false return for the year 1956.  The Commissioner determined that the complaint showed probable cause for believing that Jaben had committed the offense, and, at the Government's request, issued a summons ordering Jaben to appear at a preliminary hearing on May 15, 1963.  On May 11, 1963, the preliminary hearing on the complaint was continued to May 22, 1963, at the request of the United States Attorney, and without objection by petitioner.  The preliminary hearing was never held, since, on May 17, 1963, the grand jury superseded the complaint procedure by returning an indictment against Jaben, one count of which covered the 1956 attempted evasion which the complaint had charged.  The indictment was not returned within the normal six-year limitation period, but if the complaint filed with the Commissioner was valid for the purpose of bringing the nine-month extension into play, then the indictment was timely.  Jaben moved to dismiss the count of the indictment pertaining to 1956, arguing that the complaint was insufficient because it did not show probable cause for believing that he had committed the offense.  Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit rejected this claim, 333 F.2d 535.  We granted certiorari, 379 U.S. 878, to resolve a conflict with United States v. Greenberg, 320 F.2d 467, decided by the Ninth Circuit, in which an identical claim, based on a virtually identical complaint, was accepted.  For reasons that follow, we agree with the Eighth Circuit and affirm its judgment. Page 381 U. S. 217IUnder the Government's interpretation of § 6531, probable cause is not relevant to the complaint's ability to initiate the extension of the limitation period.  Section 6531 provides that the nine-month extension is brought into play "[w]here a complaint is instituted before a commissioner of the United States" within the six-year period of limitations (supra, pp.  381 U. S. 215-216).  Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure defines a complaint as". . . a written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.  It shall be made upon oath before a commissioner or other officer empowered to commit persons charged with offenses against the United States."Since the Government's complaint stated the essential facts constituting the offense of attempted tax evasion and was made upon oath before a Commissioner, the Government contends that, regardless of the complaint's adequacy for any other purposes, it was valid for the purpose of triggering the nine-month extension of the limitation period whether or not it showed probable cause.  The Government would, thus, totally ignore the further steps in the complaint procedure required by Rules 4 and 5. [Footnote 1]  Indeed, Page 381 U. S. 218 it follows from its position that, once having filed a complaint, the Government need not further pursue the complaint procedure at all, and, in the event that the defendant pressed for a preliminary hearing and obtained a dismissal of the complaint, that the Government could nonetheless rely upon the complaint as having extended the limitation period.We do not accept the Government's interpretation.  Its effort to look solely to Rule 3 and ignore the requirements of the Rules that follow would deprive the institution of the complaint before the Commissioner of any independent meaning which might rationally have led Congress to fasten upon it as the method for initiating the nine-month extension.  The Commissioner's function, on that view, would be merely to rubberstamp the complaint.  The Government seeks to give his role importance in its version of § 6531 by pointing out that he would administer the oath, receive the complaint, and make sure that it stated facts constituting the offense (a requirement which would be met by a charge in the words of the statute); but surely these matters are essentially formalities.  The argument ignores the fact that the Commissioner's basic functions under the Rules are to make the judgment that probable cause exists and to warn defendants of their rights.  Furthermore, if we do not look beyond Rule 3, there is no provision for notifying the defendant that he has been charged and the period of limitations extended.  (Indeed, it is not until we reach Rule 4 that we find a requirement that the complaint Page 381 U. S. 219 must show who it was that committed the offense.)  Notice to a criminal defendant is usually achieved by service upon him of the summons or arrest warrant provided for in Rule 4.  Neither is appropriate absent a judgment by the Commissioner that the complaint shows probable cause, and no other form of notice is specified by the Rules.More basically, the evident statutory purpose of the nine-month extension provision is to afford the Government an opportunity to indict criminal tax offenders in the event that a grand jury is not in session at the end of the normal limitation period.  This is confirmed by the immediate precursor of the present section, which provided for an extension "until the discharge of the grand jury at its next session within the district."  I.R.C. 1939, § 3748(a). [Footnote 2]  Clearly, the statute was not meant to grant the Government greater time in which to make its case (a result which could have been accomplished simply by making the normal period of limitation six years and nine months), but rather was intended to deal with the situation Page 381 U. S. 220 in which the Government has its case made within the normal limitation period but cannot obtain an indictment because of the grand jury schedule.  The Government's interpretation does not reflect this statutory intention, for it provides no safeguard whatever to prevent the Government from filing a complaint at a time when it does not have its case made, and then using the nine-month period to make it.The better view of § 6531 is that the complaint, to initiate the time extension, must be adequate to begin effectively the criminal process prescribed by the Federal Criminal Rules.  It must be sufficient to justify the next steps in the process-those of notifying the defendant and bringing him before the Commissioner for a preliminary hearing.  To do so, the complaint must satisfy the probable cause requirement of Rule 4.  Furthermore, we think that the Government must proceed through the further steps of the complaint procedure by affording the defendant a preliminary hearing as required by Rule 5 unless, before the preliminary hearing is held, the grand jury supersedes the complaint procedure by returning an indictment.  This interpretation of the statute reflects its purpose by insuring that, within a reasonable time following the filing of the complaint, either the Commissioner will decide whether there is sufficient cause to bind the defendant over for grand jury action or the grand jury itself will have decided whether or not to indict.  A dismissal of the complaint before the indictment is returned would vitiate the time extension.In this case, the Government obtained a superseding indictment before any preliminary hearing took place.  Under the interpretation which we have adopted, it follows that, if the complaint satisfied the requirements of Rules 3 and 4, in particular the probable cause standard of Rule 4, then the nine-month extension had come into Page 381 U. S. 221 play and had not been cut off by any later dismissal of the complaint. [Footnote 3]  We turn then to the question whether the complaint showed probable cause.IIThe Jaben complaint read as follows:"The undersigned complainant, being duly sworn, states:""That he is a Special Agent of the Internal Revenue Service and, in the performance of the duties imposed on him by law, he has conducted an investigation of the Federal income tax liability of Max Jaben for the calendar year 1956 by examining the said taxpayer's tax return for the year 1956 and other years; by identifying and interviewing third parties with whom the said taxpayer did business; by consulting public and private records reflecting the said taxpayer's income; and by interviewing third Page 381 U. S. 222 persons having knowledge of the said taxpayer's financial condition.""That, based on the aforesaid investigation, the complainant has personal knowledge that on or about the 16th day of April, 1957, at Kansas City, Missouri, in the Western District of Missouri, Max Jaben did unlawfully and wilfully attempt to evade and defeat the income taxes due and owing by him to the United States of America for the calendar year 1956, by filing and causing to be filed with the District Director of Internal Revenue for the District of Kansas City, Missouri, at Kansas City, Missouri, a false and fraudulent income tax return, wherein he stated that his taxable income for the calendar year 1956 was $17,665.31, and that the amount of tax due and owing thereon was the sum of $6,017.32, when in fact his taxable income for the said calendar year was the sum of $40,001.76 upon which said taxable income he owed to the United States of America an income tax of $14,562.99.""[Signed] David A. Thompson""Special Agent""Internal Revenue Service""Kansas City, Missouri"Petitioner argues that the complaint is basically indistinguishable from that which the Court found wanting in Giordenello v. United States, 357 U. S. 480.  The Giordenello complaint read in relevant part:"The undersigned complainant being duly sworn states:  that, on or about January 26, 1956, at Houston, Texas in the Southern District of Texas, Veto Giordenello did receive, conceal, etc., narcotic drugs, to-wit:  heroin hydrochloride with knowledge of unlawful importation; in violation of Section 174, Title 21, United States Code. "Page 381 U. S. 223"And the complainant further states that he believes that ______ ______ [Footnote 4] are material witnesses in relation to this charge."The complaints there and here are materially distinguishable.  Information in a complaint alleging the commission of a crime falls into two categories:  (1) that information which, if true, would directly indicate commission of the crime charged, and (2) that which relates to the source of the directly incriminating information.  The Giordenello complaint gave no source information whatsoever.  Its directly incriminating e.g., "A saw narcotics in B's possession," in the words of the statute, and even then incomplete, supplemented by "on or about January 26, 1956, at Houston."  If the Jaben complaint were as barren, it would have stated simply that "on or about April 16, 1957, at Kansas City, Missouri, Jaben willfully filed a false income tax return."  In fact, it gave dollars-and-cents figures for the amounts which allegedly should have been returned and the amounts actually returned.  As to sources, the affiant indicated that he, in his official capacity, had personally conducted an investigation in the course of which he had examined the taxpayer's returns for 1956 and other years, interviewed third persons with whom the taxpayer did business and others having knowledge of his financial condition, and consulted public and private records reflecting the taxpayer's income; and that the conclusion that Jaben had committed the offense was based upon this investigation.Beyond the substance of the complaint, there is a material distinction in the nature of the offense charged.  Some offenses are subject to putative establishment by blunt and concise factual allegations, e.g., "A saw narcotics in B's possession," whereas "A saw B file a false tax return" does not mean very much in a tax evasion case.  Page 381 U. S. 224 Establishment of grounds for belief that the offense of tax evasion has been committed often requires a reconstruction of the taxpayer's income from many individually unrevealing facts which are not susceptible of a concise statement in a complaint.  Furthermore, unlike narcotics informants, for example, whose credibility may often be suspect, the sources in this tax evasion case are much less likely to produce false or untrustworthy information.  Thus, whereas some supporting information concerning the credibility of informants in narcotics cases or other common garden varieties of crime may be required, such information is not so necessary in the context of the case before us.Giordenello v. United States, supra, and Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108, established that a magistrate is intended to make a neutral judgment that resort to further criminal process is justified.  A complaint must provide a foundation for that judgment.  It must provide the affiant's answer to the magistrate's hypothetical question, "What makes you think that the defendant committed the offense charged?"  This does not reflect a requirement that the Commissioner ignore the credibility of the complaining witness.  There is a difference between disbelieving the affiant and requiring him to indicate some basis for his allegations.  Obviously any reliance upon factual allegations necessarily entails some degree of reliance upon the credibility of the source.  See, e.g., Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10,  333 U. S. 13.  Nor does it indicate that each factual allegation which the affiant puts forth must be independently documented, or that each and every fact which contributed to his conclusions be spelled out in the complaint.  Compare United States v. Ventresca, 380 U. S. 102.  It simply requires that enough information be presented to the Commissioner to enable him to make the judgment that the charges are not Page 381 U. S. 225 capricious and are sufficiently supported to justify bringing into play the further steps of the criminal process.In this instance, the issue of probable cause comes down to the adequacy of the basis given for the allegation that petitioner's income was $40,001.76 instead of the $17,665.31 he had reported.  This is not the type of fact that can be physically observed.  The amount of petitioner's income could only be determined by examining records and interviewing third persons familiar with petitioner's financial condition.  Compare Holland v. United States, 348 U. S. 121.  Here the affiant, a Special Agent of the Internal Revenue Service, swore that he had conducted just such an investigation and thereafter swore that he had personal knowledge as to petitioner's actual income.  In such circumstances, the magistrate would be justified in accepting the agent's judgment of what he "saw" without requiring him to bring the records and persons to court, to list and total the items of unreported income or to otherwise explain how petitioner's actual income was calculated.We conclude that the challenged count of this indictment is not time-barred.Affirmed
U.S. Supreme CourtJaben v. United States, 381 U.S. 214 (1965)Jaben v. United StatesNo. 347Argued March 9, 1965Decided May 17, 1965381 U.S. 214SyllabusThe day before the six-year limitation period for a willful attempt to evade federal income taxes would have expired, the Government filed a complaint with a Commissioner charging petitioner with that offense.  Section 6531 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 provides for an extension of the limitation period for nine months from the filing of a complaint.  The complainant, an Internal Revenue Service Agent, swore that he had investigated petitioner's liability for the taxable year by examining petitioner's returns, by interviewing persons with whom petitioner did business and those familiar with his financial condition, and by consulting records reflecting petitioner's income, and that, based on such investigation, the complainant had personal knowledge of petitioner's willful attempt to evade his taxes by understating his income in the amount stated.  The Commissioner determined that the complaint showed probable cause for believing that petitioner had committed the offense, and issued a summons for him to appear at a preliminary hearing, which was not held, the complaint having been superseded over a month later by an indictment with a count applicable to the offense charged in the complaint.  Petitioner moved to dismiss that count as insufficient because it did not show probable cause for believing that he had committed the offense, a claim which both the trial court and the Court of Appeals rejected.Held:1. To initiate the time extension authorized by § 6531, it is not enough that the complaint state the essential facts of the offense of willful attempted tax evasion, but the complaint must show that there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed that offense; and all the other steps of the complaint procedure provided by Rules 3, 4 and 5 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure must be satisfied.  Pp.  381 U. S. 217-221.(a) The Commissioner's basic functions under the Rules are not just to receive a complaint such as the one here which states the essential facts of the offense, but to determine that probable cause exists, and to warn the defendant of his rights.  Pp.  381 U. S. 217-219. Page 381 U. S. 215(b) The purpose of the extension provision of § 6531 here involved is not to extend the limitation period so that the Government can develop its case, but to afford the Government an opportunity to indict a criminal tax offender as to whom its case is already made in the event a grand jury is not in session at the end of the normal limitation period.  Pp.  381 U. S. 219-220.(c) The defendant must be afforded a preliminary hearing unless, as here, a superseding indictment is obtained prior thereto.  Pp.  381 U. S. 220-221.2. The complaint filed by an Internal Revenue Service Agent upon the basis of his investigation and containing his sworn statement of personal knowledge derived therefrom of petitioner's income afforded probable cause for believing that petitioner had committed the offense charged.  Giordenello v. United States, 357 U. S. 480, distinguished.  Pp.  381 U. S. 221-225.3. The challenged count of the indictment was not barred by the statute of limitations.  P.  381 U. S. 225.333 F.2d 535 affirmed.