Justia White Collar Crime Opinion Summaries

Husband and wife filed returns for tax years 1997-1999 reporting zero income, despite having reportable income. Based on advice from their dentist and their own research, they concluded that no provision of the Internal Revenue Code imposed liability on them for taxes, and attached this explanation to their returns. They succeeded in stopping their employer from withholding taxes claiming exemptions and having the employer treat them as independent contractors, not subject to withholding of social security and medicare taxes. Between 2000 and 2008, despite reportable income asserted by the government to exceed $100,000 in each year, they filed no returns and took steps that made it more difficult for the government to track their assets. Between 1999 and 2007, the IRS repeatedly informed them that their position was frivolous and specifically warned of criminal sanctions. Convicted of conspiracy to defraud the U.S., 18 U.S.C. 371 (2006); attempted evasion of payment of tax, 26 U.S.C. 7201; and four counts of willful failure to file income tax returns, each was sentenced to 36 months in prison. The First Circuit affirmed, reasoning that the convictions were based on defendants' conduct, not guilt by association. View "United States v. Allen" on Justia Law

Taxpayer took business and individual tax deductions for the cost of "Loss of Income" insurance policies. The policies were back-dated, had a high premium to coverage ratio, were described as tax-savings products, and allowed taxpayer access to and control over the funds. A significant part of the premium was invested for later distribution to the policy holder. He was convicted of: subscribing a false tax return, 26 U.S.C. 7206(1); attempting to evade taxes, 26 U.S.C. 7201; and conspiracy to defraud the government, 18 U.S.C. 371. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the government presented sufficient evidence of the crimes. The court rejected a challenge to prior bad acts evidence and an argument that the government was required by the nature of the charges to forgo charging him under the general crime of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. The district court properly ordered payment of restitution for the personal income taxes of his co-conspirator.View "United States v. Rozin" on Justia Law

A tax employee of defendant, terminated after reporting an alleged tax fraud scheme to the company and federal enforcement agencies, filed suit asserting claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) and 1962(d). The district court dismissed, finding that the predicate acts alleged were either unrelated or did not proximately cause plaintiff's injuries. The Seventh Circuit reversed. The retaliatory actions were related to the alleged tax fraud scheme, under the Supreme Court's "continuity plus relationship" test. Since enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 18 U.S.C. 1513(e) retaliation against an employee constitutes racketeering. Retaliatory acts are inherently connected to the underlying wrongdoing exposed by the whistleblower, even though they occur after the coverup is exposed. In this case, the retaliatory acts were not isolated events, separate from the tax fraud. Plaintiff properly alleged that his termination was proximately caused by a RICO predicate act of retaliation. View "DeGuelle v. Camilli" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of eight counts of filing a false income tax return (26 U.S.C. 7206(1)). The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Although the district court applied the wrong standard in determining whether defendant could assert good faith, the error was harmless given overwhelming evidence of a lack of good faith. The court properly held that he could not present evidence of good faith unless he waived his Fifth Amendment rights and testified and relied on acquitted conduct concerning his sisters' tax returns in determining the sentence to be imposed. View "United States v. Kokeni" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of tax evasion, a felony (26 U.S.C. 7201), and failure to file a tax return for the 2004 tax year, a misdemeanor (26 U.S.C. 7203). The Seventh Circuit affirmed in part. Defendant waived his claim under the Speedy Trial Act (18 U.S.C. 3162) by failing to move to dismiss the indictment prior to trial. Defendant presented no support for arguing a Sixth Amendment violation caused by the pretrial delay and waived a multiplicity challenge to his indictment. The convictions were supported by substantial evidence and the sentence was reasonable. The district court has authority to impose restitution as a condition of supervised release; the court vacated and remanded for a determination of whether it had done so. View "United States v. Hassebrock" on Justia Law

Appellant appealed his conviction and sentence on two counts of attempted tax evasion. Appellant argued that the government failed to prove the element of tax loss because it relied upon a flawed calculation under the "cash method of proof" and attributed to appellant $1.9 million of alleged gain when those funds, as a matter of law, belonged to his two corporations. Appellant challenged his sentence to the extent it rested upon the allegedly incorrect calculation of tax loss. The court found no error in the district court's denial of defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal. The court also held that, because a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt a tax was due and owing on $300,000 of income, the court left for another day how best to interpret the dictum in James v. United States. The court affirmed the sentence because the district court made sufficient factual findings at sentencing to support the inclusion of the $1.9 million in the calculation of tax loss. View "United States v. Khanu" on Justia Law

Defendants, Brian Keith Ellefson and Mark Edward Ellefsen, were convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States by obstructing the IRS in the assessment and collection of federal taxes. Brian was also convicted of three counts of filing false income tax returns while Mark was convicted of three counts of aiding and assisting the preparation of false income tax returns. Defendants appealed their convictions and challenged the restitution order. The court held that because the undisclosed information at issue was not material, there was no Brady violation. The court also held that, although the defense should have been allowed to cross-examine a certain government witness regarding a tax-loss calculation and whether she considered Brian's additional payments, any error in denying the cross-examination was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding defendants' proposed expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. The district court also did not err in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal and did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial where the record was replete with evidence to support the jury's finding that defendants acted willfully. The court finally held that there was no clear error in the district court's judgment of restitution where the government met its burden of proof and deducted Brian's additional payments from the amount of restitution owed to the IRS. Accordingly, the convictions and restitution orders were affirmed. View "United States v. Ellefsen" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of filing a false joint income tax return with his wife for calendar year 2007 and sentenced to twenty-four months in prison. On appeal, defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence of willful false reporting, admission of unfairly prejudicial evidence of gambling expenses, and a substantively unreasonable sentence. The court held that the government's evidence was sufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to find the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also held that defendant's casino activities were clear evidence that he personally spent a substantial amount of his business's reported income on expenditures that were not reportable as the business's costs of goods sold and that the evidence was unlikely to unfairly prejudice him. The court further held that the district court did not abuse its substantial sentencing discretion in imposing a presumptively reasonable sentence that was within the advisory guidelines range. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Shrum" on Justia Law

Appellant was the target of a grand jury investigation seeking to determine whether he used secret Swiss bank accounts to evade paying federal taxes. The district court granted a motion to compel appellant's compliance with a grand jury subpoena dueces tecum demanding that he produce certain records related to his foreign bank accounts. The court declined to condition its order compelling production upon a grant of limited immunity, and pursuant to the recalcitrant witness statute, 28 U.S.C. 1826, held appellant in contempt for refusing to comply. The court held that because the records sought through the subpoena fell under the Required Records Doctrine, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination was inapplicable, and appellant could not invoke it to resist compliance with the subpoena's command. The court also held that because appellant's Fifth Amendment privilege was not implicated, it need not address appellant's request for immunity. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "In re: Grand Jury Investigation of M.H." on Justia Law

The United States brought this civil action under 26 U.S.C. 7408 to enjoin defendant from promoting several fraudulent tax schemes. After a court trial, the district court permanently enjoined defendant from promoting his schemes, ordered him to advise the IRS of any tax arrangements or business entities formed at his discretion, and required him to provide a copy of its order to his clients. On appeal, defendant argued that the injunction was not supported by adequate factual findings and legal conclusions, and that it was overbroad, an impermissible delegation of Article III power, and an unconstitutional prior restraint. The court rejected defendant's hypertechnical criticisms of the district court's order where section 6700 was a linguistically complex and intricate statute and where the district court need not include the entire statutory language in each of its findings and conclusions. Therefore, the court held that the district court's exhaustive order more than satisfied each of the requirements in section 6700 and affirmed the judgment of the district court.