This memorandum discusses whether a client's underreporting of federal income tax constitutes a misdemeanor or felony. The client believed he did not need to report income from real estate investments until properties were sold. This is similar to the defendant in Salisbury who thought gun sale profits only needed to be reported at sale. The memorandum analyzes relevant cases and determines the client's actions likely only constitute a misdemeanor under 26 U.S.C. § 7203 since he did not intend to evade taxes or make false statements, unlike defendants in Freed and Mal who were found to have willfully evaded payment.
Property settlement is quite complex and stressful after divorce or separation. If you are in trouble regarding how to divide your income, financial resources and debts between you and your former spouse, see us and get cost-effective solution through experienced family lawyers.
גיל אורלי סוד הכסף הוא קורס שילמד אותך להשיג נכס משלך תוך 100 יום, לא משנה מהו מצבך הכלכלי כרגע. סוד הכסף ילמד לחשוב ולהשקיע כמו העשירים, איך לנהל תזרים ולבחון השקעות כמו מקצוען. בקרו באתר לפרטים נוספים http://www.sodhakesef.co.il
ACC 490 Week 4 LT Assignment Apollo Shoes Case Assignment 2015 versionplasketholli
Sample content
Learning Team Assignment:
Internal Control Audit – Apollo Shoes
ACC 490
Assertions and Questions
Yes, No, N/A
Comments
Occurrence assertion:
1. Is the credit department independent of the sales department?
Yes
The salesclerks are in the marketing division and order requiring credit authorization is taken to the credit manager in the treasury division.
2. Are sales of the following types controlled by the same procedures described below? Sales to employees, COD sales, disposals of property, cash sales, and scrap sales.
No
The sales by various teams are handled differently as per organization policies and methods.
3. Is access to sales invoice blanks restricted?
Yes
Sales bills are locked up in the billing division and are taken out on an as-needed basis.
4. Are pre-numbered bills of lading or other shipping documents prepared or completed in the shipping department?
Yes
The delivery division utilizes a pre-numbered Bill of Lading havi
Sample motion to vacate California divorce judgment for fraud and perjuryLegalDocsPro
This sample motion to vacate a dissolution (divorce) judgment in California on the grounds of fraud and perjury is filed pursuant to the provisions of California Family Code sections 2122(a) and (b). This sample can also be used to vacate a legal separation or nullity judgment in California as well. The sample on which this preview is based is 10 pages and includes brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority and a sample declaration.
Property settlement is quite complex and stressful after divorce or separation. If you are in trouble regarding how to divide your income, financial resources and debts between you and your former spouse, see us and get cost-effective solution through experienced family lawyers.
גיל אורלי סוד הכסף הוא קורס שילמד אותך להשיג נכס משלך תוך 100 יום, לא משנה מהו מצבך הכלכלי כרגע. סוד הכסף ילמד לחשוב ולהשקיע כמו העשירים, איך לנהל תזרים ולבחון השקעות כמו מקצוען. בקרו באתר לפרטים נוספים http://www.sodhakesef.co.il
ACC 490 Week 4 LT Assignment Apollo Shoes Case Assignment 2015 versionplasketholli
Sample content
Learning Team Assignment:
Internal Control Audit – Apollo Shoes
ACC 490
Assertions and Questions
Yes, No, N/A
Comments
Occurrence assertion:
1. Is the credit department independent of the sales department?
Yes
The salesclerks are in the marketing division and order requiring credit authorization is taken to the credit manager in the treasury division.
2. Are sales of the following types controlled by the same procedures described below? Sales to employees, COD sales, disposals of property, cash sales, and scrap sales.
No
The sales by various teams are handled differently as per organization policies and methods.
3. Is access to sales invoice blanks restricted?
Yes
Sales bills are locked up in the billing division and are taken out on an as-needed basis.
4. Are pre-numbered bills of lading or other shipping documents prepared or completed in the shipping department?
Yes
The delivery division utilizes a pre-numbered Bill of Lading havi
Sample motion to vacate California divorce judgment for fraud and perjuryLegalDocsPro
This sample motion to vacate a dissolution (divorce) judgment in California on the grounds of fraud and perjury is filed pursuant to the provisions of California Family Code sections 2122(a) and (b). This sample can also be used to vacate a legal separation or nullity judgment in California as well. The sample on which this preview is based is 10 pages and includes brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority and a sample declaration.
Sample motion to vacate sister state judgment in CaliforniaLegalDocsPro
This sample motion to vacate a sister state judgment in California is filed under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 1710.40 on the grounds that the judgment is void because service was defective or was not made at all. The sample is 11 pages and includes brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, sample declaration and proof of service by mail. The author is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 255 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation.
Motion to Dismiss 12 B 5 FILING Stamped-1 July 2021.pdfFrankEkejija1
Frank Ekejija and NVC Fund evidence supporting the Court filings exposed and debunked the SEC's wrongful actions and false assumptions. The facts are clear and on record.
Tax Research Assignment 2Acct 6140 Students OnlyFall 2013You.docxssuserf9c51d
Tax Research Assignment 2
Acct 6140 Students Only
Fall 2013
Your assignment is to write a professional tax research memorandum that
addresses the issue shown below.
Mike is a salesperson who represents several companies. On
January 2, 2014, he receives by mail a commission check from
Produce Packaging Distributors, Inc. in the amount of $13,500 and
dated December 30, 2013. Mike is concerned about the year in
which the $13,500 is taxable. Although the check is dated 2013, he
contends that it would have been unreasonable for him to drive the
55 miles to the Produce Packaging offices on a holiday to collect the
check. Further, Mike maintains that even if he had made the trip to
collect the check, by the time he returned home, his bank would have
closed and he could not have received credit for the check until after
the first of the year.
In addition, Mike attended classes provided by his church in 2013.
He made payments to the church that were required to attend
classes. He plans to deduct the payments as charitable contributions
to his church on his 2013 tax return.
a. Mike would like you to determine whether he should include the
$13,500 commission income on his 2013 or 2014 tax return.
b. Mike would also like to know if he can deduct the payments to his
church as charitable contributions in 2013.
Tax Research Memo Format:
Title your memo either generally, e.g., Research Memorandum or more
specifically, e.g., name of the client and the specific tax situation at hand
Address your memo to the client file [include the standard Date, To, From,
and Re headings]
Organize the body of your memo using the following subheadings:
o Facts
o Issue(s)
o Conclusion(s)
o Analysis/Discussion
The Facts section should clearly and concisely summarize all relevant
facts that may affect the tax outcomes. In particular, include dollar
amounts, dates, and names of all parties to transactions.
The Issues section should include numbered issues if there is more than
one. Write each issue as a question. Include enough of the facts to give
context to the question. For example, How much, if any, of the $3,000
John Doe paid for attending a Real Estate conference cruise from Miami
to Galveston can he deduct as a business education expense? is better
than What are the tax consequences of these facts?
The Conclusion(s) should be numbered to correspond to the Issue(s).
State a definite conclusion, if possible, for each Issue. If a definite
conclusion is not possible, for example, because you are researching
alternative ways to plan a transaction, then state the conclusion that will
be appropriate IF each alternative is taken.
The Analysis/Discussion section should be organized to correspond to
each issue if there is more than one.
Each numbered subsection in the Analysis section should be organized as
follows:
o Summarize the relevant Code section. For example, if you are
analyzing a deductibility of a business expense, begin by
summarizing the rule in §162(a). Parap ...
Bankruptcy Adversary Proceeding in Eleventh Circuit Court, Florida. Defendant's Closing Argument Brief for Dischargeability under Section 523(a)(4) and 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code. Defendant is a Pro Se Litigant. Defending against allegations made from an ex-boyfriend who was using his business to escape liability. Tax avoidance, collusion, conflict of interest, abuse of power.
Sample complaint for rescission of contract in CaliforniaLegalDocsPro
This sample complaint for rescission of contract in California also contains causes of action for fraud, reformation of contract, usury violations, unfair business practices, cancellation of written instruments, declaratory relief, injunctive relief and an account. The sample complaint was used to sue an individual private lender that defrauded an individual and used undue influence to convince them to sign an amended promissory note with an usurious annual interest rate of 18%, and then started non-judicial foreclosure proceedings by claiming an inflated amount due on the notice of default. The sample complaint on which this preview is based is 16 pages and includes brief instructions and a sample verification. The author is an entrepreneur and retired litigation paralegal that worked in California and Federal litigation from January 1995 through September 2017 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale. Note that the author is NOT an attorney and no guarantee or warranty is provided.
Sample opposition to rule 60(b)(1) motion to vacate judgment in United States...LegalDocsPro
This sample opposition to motion to vacate a judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in United States District Court is filed on the grounds that the motion is untimely as the moving party delayed in filing the motion, culpable conduct by the moving party resulted in the judgment, no meritorious defense is shown and the opposing party would suffer prejudice if the judgment were set aside and other grounds. The sample can be modified for use in most situations and is 10 pages and includes brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, sample declaration and proof of service by mail.
Order denying Abbott Labs Motion for Summary Judgment and finding in favor of...Mark Briggs
Ray Dieppa Raymond Dieppa Ray Dieppa Raymond Dieppa personal injury employment discrimination abbot labs settlement verdict attorney raymond dieppa attorney lawyer attorney federal diversity
at will employment breach of employment
Sample motion to amend judgment to add alter ego as judgment debtor in United...LegalDocsPro
This sample motion to amend a judgment to add an alter ego as a judgment debtor in United States District Court is filed pursuant to Rule 69(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and California Code of Civil Procedure section 187 on the grounds of alter ego liability in that there is such as unity of interest and ownership between the corporation and the shareholder who is its equitable owner that the separate personalities of the corporation and the shareholder do not in reality exist, and that failure to do would sanction fraud or promote injustice. The sample on which this preview is based is 13 pages and includes brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, sample declaration and proof of service.
Sample motion for order compelling satisfaction of judgment in CaliforniaLegalDocsPro
This sample motion for an order compelling a full satisfaction of judgment in California can be filed by a judgment debtor that has fully satisfied a judgment and the judgment creditor has refused to comply with a written demand for a full satisfaction of judgment within 15 days.
The motion is filed is filed pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 724.050(d). The sample motion requests an order compelling the judgment creditor to execute, acknowledge and file an acknowledgment of full satisfaction of judgment with the court and record a certified copy of the filed acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment with the County Recorder of the County where the abstract of judgment was recorded. The sample also requests actual and statutory damages pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 724.050(e) and reasonable attorney's fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 724.080. The sample on which this preview is based is 15 pages and includes brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, sample declarations, and proof of service. The author is a freelance paralegal that has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale.
Sample opposition to motion to vacate in California with an attorney affidavi...LegalDocsPro
This sample opposition to California motion to vacate judgment with an attorney affidavit of fault is used to oppose a motion made under the mandatory attorney affidavit of fault provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) on several grounds including that the motion is untimely, does not include the required attorney affidavit of fault, the attorney is covering up for the client and other grounds. The sample on which this preview is based is 12 pages and includes brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority and a sample declaration.
The Cost of Litigation: A Case Study, Business Law, Plymouth State University...Kevin O'Shea
In 2009, I presented to Professor Forgues’ Business Law Class at Plymouth State University addressing the high cost of business litigation and using Real Estate Bar Ass'n for Mass., Inc. v. Nat'l Real Estate Info. Servs. 642 F. Supp. 2d 58 (D. Mass. 2009) as a case study.
Legal Proceedings Initiated Against Steven de Koenigswarter and Associated En...Theworld Crawler
Court order from the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario, Canada. The order is dated July 4, 2023, and it is addressed to Steven de Koenigswarter, Luc Georges de Clerck, the de Koenigswarter Family Trust, the Health Factory Holding BV, and Venator International SA.
The order states that a legal proceeding has been commenced against the defendants by the plaintiff, 2705564 Ontario Inc. The claim made against the defendants is set out in the statement of claim that was served with the notice of action
Sample motion for protective order for deposition in CaliforniaLegalDocsPro
This sample motion for a protective order for a deposition in California is filed under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure 2025.420(b) on the grounds that the moving party will suffer unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense if the court does not grant the motion for a protective order. The sample on which this preview is based is 18 pages and includes brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, sample declaration and proof of service by mail. The author is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal that has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale.
Motion to Dismiss Claims for Misappropriation of Trade Secrets and Tortious Interference under Florida law. Tampa, Florida. Hillsborough County Circuit Court - Complex Business Litigation Division.
Pollard PLLC
P. 954-332-2380
Sample motion to vacate judgment under Rule 60(b)(3) in United States Distric...LegalDocsPro
This sample motion to vacate a judgment in United States District Court is filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party which prevented the moving party from fairly presenting their case. The sample on which this preview is based is 11 pages and includes brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, sample declaration and proof of service by mail. The author is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995.
1. Memorandum
To:
Cc:
From: Jerry Woods
Date: March 27, 2014
Re: Income Tax Underreporting Issue
Issues
1. Whether underreporting federal income tax rises to the level of misdemeanor without an underlying
felony.
2. Whether a misdemeanor conviction under 26 U.S.C. § 7203 is appropriate for our client.
Brief Answers
1. No. Underreporting federal income tax can be either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on intent.
It is possible to be guilty of underreporting under § 7203 without being found guilty under § 7201 of
committing an affirmative act with the intent to evade or defeat paying income tax. Further, it is
possible to be guilty of underreporting under § 7203 without being found guilty of intentionally
making false statements, which raises an underreporting offense to the level of a felony under § 7206.
2. Yes. Our client thought that he was not supposed to report the income that he invested in real estate
properties until after he sold them. Therefore, he did not commit an affirmative act with the intent to
evade or defeat paying income tax. Additionally, he made no intentionally false representations as to a
material matter when filing his tax returns.
Rules
Whether a defendant’s records show any attempt to falsify or conceal information relating to income is
relevant to the question of intent. United States v. Salisbury, 365 Fed.Appx. 622, 626 (2010), (Not
selected for publication in the Federal Reporter).
When pleading nolo contendere to willful failure to pay income tax, Defendant admitted to willfulness
and could not subsequently attack evidence which proved willfulness. United States v. Freed, 688 F.2d
24, 25-26 (1982).
2. In Freed, the Government theorized that the defendant transferred assets to his wife’s name and
channeled income to his sons to avoid paying income tax. The Court determined that the defendant acted
willfully. Defendant was convicted of willful failure to pay income tax under § 7203. 688 F.2d 24, 25
(1982).
A willful failure to supply information, file an income tax return, or pay income tax rises only to the level
of misdemeanor, while an affirmative act, showing intent, is required to bring tax violation to the level of
felony. United States v. Mal, 942 F.2d 682, 684 (1991), (citing Sansone v. United States, 380 U.S. 343, 351,
85 S.Ct. 1004, 1010, 13 L.Ed.2d 882 (1965); Spies v. United States, 317 U.S. 492, 496, 63 S.Ct. 364, 366, 87
L.Ed. 418 (1943)).
Defendant provided no explanation of why he did not report certain sales transaction funds as income.
Therefore, proposed witness testimony employing a “pool of capital” theory for “non-recognition for tax
purposes” was properly barred from trial. United States v. Kokenis, 662 F.3d 919, 927 (2011).
A resident alien who willfully makes and subscribes a false income tax return in which the government
loss in revenue exceeds Ten-Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) commits an “aggravated felony” that
involves “fraud or deceit.” Kawashima v. Holder, 132 S.Ct. 1166, 1169, 182 L.Ed.2d 1 (2012).
Because the INA provision broadly refers to crimes committed with an element of fraud or deceit, an alien
who willfully submits a tax return which is false as to a material matter is guilty of committing a felony
under 26 U.S.C.A. § 7206(1). Id.
If a defendant willfully aids and assists in preparing a tax return which is false as to a material matter,
defendant is guilty of committing a felony under 26 U.S.C.A. § 7206(2). Id.
A professional tax preparer who prepared returns for himself and his wife included details “he must have
known to be false, including misstating their marital status,” is relevant when determining intent under
§ 7206. United States v. Watson, 433 Fed.Appx. 284, 287 (2011), (Not selected for publication in the
Federal Reporter).
…
Courts define a willful failure to perform a known legal duty, such as tax payment, tax return filing, and
information disclosure, as an offense that rises to the level of a misdemeanor under 26 U.S.C. § 7203
because the willfulness lacks the additional element of an affirmative or deceitful act. United States v.
Salisbury, 365 Fed.Appx. 622, 626 (2010), (Not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter).
3. In Salisbury, the defendant thought that the antique firearms he purchased using income earned from
previous sales were not to be reported as income until he sold them. Id. at 629. He therefore understated
his income in the amount of approximately Nine-Hundred Twenty-One Thousand, One-Hundred
Twenty-One Dollars ($921,121.00). The court determined the tax loss to be in excess of One Million
Dollars ($1,000,000.00) once penalties and interest were factored. Id. at 625.
In its discussion of what determines willfulness, the court in Salisbury reasoned that the defendant had to
demonstrate through his actions that he voluntarily and intentionally violated a known duty. Id. at 628
(citing United States v. Pomponio, 429 U.S. 10, 12-13, 97 S.Ct. 22, 50 L.Ed.2d. 12 (1976)). To illustrate
this, the court pointed out that the defendant’s underreporting, combined with the fact that earnings
from many of his gun sales transactions were funneled to his girlfriend’s account instead of his own,
created “an inference of dishonesty,” therefore supporting willfulness. Id. at 629.
The defendant argued that “the government never proved that he willfully chose not to report his profits
in the years of the transactions as opposed to the years when he cleared out all of his gun inventory.” Id. at
628. However, the court noted that the defendant received a One-Hundred, Fifty-Thousand Dollar
($150,000.00) commission “for one transaction that never showed up in his taxes for the relevant year”
and that he received checks from an artist who sold artwork to the museum where the defendant was
employed, and these also went unreported. Id. at 629.
The court concluded that even the defendant’s amendment attempts did not “show that he made a full
and accurate report of all material facts” at the time when he filed, which was sufficient to support a
finding of willfulness. Id. at 628.
…
Courts have determined that by pleading nolo contendere to a willful failure to pay income tax, a
defendant is admitting to willfulness that cannot be subsequently attacked as insufficient for a finding of
willfulness. United States v. Freed, 688 F.2d 24, 25-26 (1982).
In Freed, the defendant, an attorney, claimed that he was at a Five-Hundred, Eighty-Seven Dollar and
Fifty-Cent ($587.50) deficiency after paying his mortgage, his son’s salary, and various living and
entertainment expenses, despite gross earnings of Fifty-Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00). Id. at 25. The
defendant believed that the evidence against him was insufficient for a conviction under § 7203 because of
a 1976 bankruptcy filing which discharged his 1972 tax liability. Id.
The court reasoned that the 1976 discharge had no real relevance to the charge of willfulness because the
tax years in question were 1973, 1974, and 1975 - not 1972. Id. at 25. Further, the court determined that by
4. pleading nolo contendere, the defendant was admitting his guilt and therefore could not challenge the
evidence against him at a later time. Id. at 26.
The court concluded that the defendant’s conviction to three counts of willful failure to pay income tax
under § 7203 was appropriate. Id. at 26.
...
Courts recognize that a willful failure to perform a known legal duty, such as tax payment, tax return
filing, and accurate information disclosure, is an action that does not automatically give rise to a felony
offense under 26 U.S.C. § 7201, which requires an additional affirmative act. United States v. Mal, 942
F.2d 682, 684 (1991), (citing Sansone v. United States, 380 U.S. 343, 351, 85 S.Ct. 1004, 1010, 13 L.Ed.2d
882 (1965); Spies v. United States, 317 U.S. 492, 496, 63 S.Ct. 364, 366, 87 L.Ed. 418 (1943)).
In Mal, the defendant filed W-4 forms with his employers stating that he was exempt from federal income
tax withholding. During this time, he did not file a return or pay income tax. The defendant believed that
he was not required to pay income tax because “his income was offset by moving expenses, interest
payments, and alimony and child support obligations.” Id. at 684.
In its discussion of what constituted a felony under § 7201, the court reasoned that the government has
the burden of proving that “the income tax was due and owing from the government, an affirmative act
in any manner to evade or defeat an income tax” had been committed, and “that the defendant’s attempt
to evade and defeat the tax was willful.” Id. at 685.
The defendant argued that jury instructions did not fully explain “that an affirmative act must be a
commission[,]” not merely “an omission.” Id. Additionally, he questioned the use of two different
definitions of the word “attempt” used throughout the trial, contending that these errors “‘left open the
possibility’ that the ‘jury may have convicted him solely on the basis of an omission rather than an
affirmative act.’” Id.
The court concluded that the jury instructions provided “did not constitute plain error” and that the jury
was given very clear and proper instruction on the requirements for a § 7201 violation in order for the
government to prove guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. Id. at 686 (citing Fournier, 861 F.2d at 149).
…
Courts define good faith as “a claim that [the defendant] did not act willfully.” Courts go on to define
willfulness as a “voluntary and intentional violation of a known legal duty or the purposeful omission to
5. do what the law requires.” United States v. Kokenis, 662 F.3d 919, 930 (2011) (quoting United States v.
Brimberry, 961 F.2d 1286, 1291 (7th Cir. 1992)).
In Kokenis, the defendant, president of Delta Oil and Delta Energy, instructed his accountant to prepare
tax returns showing transactions as liabilities instead of the sales they truly were for tax years 1997-2000.
These transactions were in excess of $6.3 Million ($6,300,000.00). Id. at 923. Orlando Mondero, Delta
Oil and Delta Energy’s controller and accountant, contacted the IRS in 1998 concerning fraudulent
transactions. Id. at 922.
In its discussion of what constitutes good faith, the court reasoned that the government had the burden
of proving that the defendant acted willfully and that he did not “believe that the tax return was true,
correct, and complete as to every material matter.” Id. at 930.
The defendant challenged Mondero’s honesty and argued that the government did not prove willfulness.
Further, he argued that testimony by five witnesses which would have supported his good faith argument
was barred. Id. at 926. The court reasoned that the evidence the defendant wanted to introduce was
irrelevant and otherwise misleading or confusing. Id. at 928. Additionally, the court stated that the
evidence provided did not support a showing of good faith. Id. 929-930.
The court held that the defendant was not entitled to a good faith instruction because the evidence
presented showed that he acted willfully. Id.
…
Courts acknowledge the definition of deceit is “‘the act or process of deceiving (as by falsification,
concealment, or cheating).’ Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 584 (1993).” Id. at 1172.
In Kawashima, the defendant’s were resident aliens who intentionally and knowingly made and assisted
in making false statements on their income tax returns. Because the loss to the government exceeded
Ten-Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), the court concluded that the defendants committed an “aggravated
felony” that involved “fraud or deceit,” characterized in the Immigration and Nationality Act §
101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), which classifies removable offenses. Id. at 1169.
The defendants argued that they should not be found guilty under 26 U.S.C. § 7206, but instead under §
7201. The defendants then argued that, because of ambiguities that existed in the language of §
1101(a)(43)(M)(i) and (ii), the court should rule in favor of the defendants. Id. at 1176.
However, the court reasoned that because Clause (i) addressed felonies more broadly, Clause (ii) was
developed to ensure that income tax evasion was a deportable offense under § 7201. Id. at 1175.
6. The court held that the convictions under § 7206 were appropriate because they constituted aggravated
felonies under Clause (i) involving fraud and deceit. Id. at 1176.
Application
Similarly to our client’s scenario, the defendant in Salisbury underreported his income from the sale of
antique firearms with the intent to report his profits once these weapons were sold. Id. at 625. The court
found defendant was aware of his duty to pay income tax based on other income reported. Id. at 629. The
tax loss to the government, after interest and penalties were calculated, exceeded One Million Dollars
($1,000,000.00) Id. at 625. Our client mistakenly underreported his income believing that he was
supposed to report his income once the properties were sold.
The defendant in Salisbury made substantial profits from the transactions but failed to pay all of the tax
due. “He reported no relevant income in the first year, and $247,888 in ‘seller premiums’ (listed under
capital gains) in the second.” Defendant later “filed amended tax returns to account for some, though not
all, of the additional income from his gun sales.” Defendant’s explanation was that he “thought items
were not to be reported as income until sold.” Id. at 625.
Originally, the defendant was charged by the government with wire fraud and conspiracy to commit tax
evasion. The jury acquitted the defendant of these charges but found him guilty of two misdemeanor
counts of willful failure to pay tax under § 7203. Id. at 625.
Unlike our client’s scenario, the government theorized that the defendant in Freed actually transferred
funds to his wife and his sons in order to avoid paying income tax. The defendant was an attorney whose
gross income was approximately Fifty-Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) for at least one of the years in
question. But after making mortgage payments on a house that he transferred to his wife’s name, paying
his son’s salary, and paying other expenses, the defendant claimed that he was actually Five-Hundred,
Eighty-Seven Dollars and Fifty-Cents ($587.50) in debt and could not pay his taxes. Id. at 25.
The defendant in Freed argued that the evidence that the government presented was insufficient for a
conviction because the record demonstrated that he was unable to pay tax. Further, since he filed for
bankruptcy in 1976, he was released from his 1972 tax liability. It was his opinion that because of this, the
government could not find the defendant guilty of willfulness. However, the court pointed out that the
indictment had nothing to do with his taxes owed for that year. Instead, the government’s argument
relied on the defendant’s willfulness for tax years 1973, 1974, and 1975. Id. at 25.
Because of the defendant’s plea of nolo contendere, the court reasoned that the defendant was admitting
his guilt to the offenses detailed in the indictment. Therefore, he could not challenge the evidence against
7. him at a later time. The court found the defendant guilty of three counts of willful failure to pay income
tax under 26 U.S.C. § 7203. Id. at 26.
Mal differs greatly from our client’s scenario because, during his time as a steamfitter, the defendant did
not file a return or pay income tax. The court reasoned that to be found guilty of a felony under § 7201,
the government has the burden of proving that the defendant owed the income tax in question by the
government, that the defendant committed an affirmative act to evade or defeat the tax in question, and
“that the defendant’s attempts to evade and defeat the tax was willful.” Id. at 685. Our client did file his
return and he paid income tax.
Although the defendant in Mal argued that he thought his tax commitment was justifiably offset by
moving expenses, child support, and alimony, the court determined that the defendant “violated § 7201
by (1) failing to file tax returns; (2) failing to pay a tax; and (3) filing a false W-4 form.” The defendant
intentionally filed a false W-4 form, which ultimately “constitute[d] a sufficient affirmative act to
support a felony tax evasion prosecution” for which he was ultimately convicted. Id. at 685.
Also distinguished from our client’s issue, the defendant in Kokenis, president of Delta Oil and Delta
Energy, told his accountant to reverse sales transactions and reapply these as liabilities so that he would
appear to owe the government no income tax. These transactions exceeded $6.3 Million ($6,300,000.00).
Id. at 923. Orlando Mondero, Delta Oil and Delta Energy’s controller and accountant, contacted the IRS
concerning fraudulent transactions. Id. at 922.
The defendant challenged Mondero’s honesty and argued that the government did not prove willfulness.
The defendant wanted to present a “pool of capital theory,” arguing that doing so “would [ ] provide[ ] a
layer of credibility to [his] argument that he did not act willfully when he proposed to [his controller and
accountant] that the sales transactions not be reported as income[.]” Id. 929-930.
The defendant also argued that testimony by five witnesses would have shown good faith and proven
that the defendant was entitled to a good faith instruction. This testimony was barred because it was
deemed irrelevant, misleading, and confusing. Id. at 927. Additionally, the court stated that the evidence
provided did not support a showing of good faith because the defendant’s pool of capital theory could
not be applied to any of the transactions and there was no proof that the funds received would ever be
used specifically for future development. Id. at 929.
When determining what constitutes good faith, the court reasoned that the government had the burden
of proving that the defendant acted willfully and that he knew that the tax return was not “true, correct,
and complete as to every material matter.” Id. at 930.
8. Although the court noted that good faith could be demonstrated if willfulness could not be proven, the
court in Kokenis concluded that the evidence provided did not support a showing of good faith.
Therefore, the defendant was not entitled to a good faith instruction because the evidence presented
showed that he acted willfully. Id. 929-930.
Our case differs from Kawashima because the court in that case found Mr. Kawashima guilty of
knowingly and willfully submitting a tax return which was false as to a material matter under § 7206(1).
Id. at 1172-1173. The court found Mrs. Kawashima guilty of willfully aiding and assisting in preparing or
presenting a tax return which is false as to a material matter under § 7206(2). Id. at 1173.
The defendants argued that, instead of being charged under § 7206, they should be charged under § 7201
and that because of ambiguities in the language used in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i) and §
1101(a)(43)(M)(ii) pursuant to § 7201, the court should rule in favor of defendants. Id. at 1176 (2012).
The court in Kawashima noted that “[w]hen subparagraph (M) was enacted, the term ‘deceit’ meant ‘the
act or process of deceiving (as by falsification, concealment, or cheating).’ Webster’s Third New
International Dictionary 584 (1993).” Id. at 1172. Further, the court reasoned that while “it is still true that
the elements of tax evasion pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7201 do not necessarily involve fraud or deceit,”
(Emphasis in original), § 1101(a)(43)(M)(ii) was not intended to remove “all other tax offenses from the
scope of Clause (i)’s plain language. Rather, it was intended to “ensure that tax evasion pursuant to § 7201
was a deportable offense.” Id. at 1175.
The court in Kawashima held that the convictions under § 7206 were appropriate because the defendants
committed felonies which involved fraud and deceit. Id at 1176.
The Internal Revenue Expedited Plea Program
The goal of the Expedited Plea Program is to provide a speedy but appropriate resolution to investigation
and prosecution, serving the interests of the taxpayer and the government. Therefore, investigations
under this program do not require the same level of preparation as normal tax investigations. However,
they do require procurement of sufficient evidence to meet Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 11 (b)(3)
(Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3)) requirements to establish a referable matter. Also, the investigation charges
must appropriately address the taxpayer’s crimes. I.R.M., 9.6.2.2.1.1. (2004).
Of particular importance to our case, for the plea agreement to be acceptable under the program, it must:
1. involve legal source income
2. establish culpability for the violations charged
3. include the most significant violation
9. 4. consider the totality of the fraud committed by the taxpayer
5. not reduce tax return felony counts to misdemeanors
Taxpayers who wish to use the Expedited Plea Program are expected to cooperate fully with the IRS in
determining and satisfying tax liability. Criminal aspects must also be addressed. The appropriate IRS
division will complete any unresolved civil investigation should the criminal investigation be completed
through the use of these procedures without establishing proper civil liability. Id.
Conclusion
Under current tax law, the above cited cases suggest that if an individual willfully failed to pay his income
tax, willfully failed to file his income tax, or willfully failed to supply information, pursuant to 26 U.S.C.
§ 7203, underreporting federal income tax rises to the level of misdemeanor but is not so serious as to rise
to the level of a felony. The above cited cases also suggest that if an individual commits an affirmative act
with the intent to evade or defeat paying income tax pursuant to § 7201, the offense rises to the level of a
felony. If an individual intentionally and knowingly makes a false statement on a tax return or
intentionally and knowingly assists in making a false statement on a tax return, the offense rises to the
level of a felony under § 7206.
In our scenario, our client failed to supply necessary information to the IRS based on his belief that he was
not supposed to report this income until after properties he invested in were sold. Therefore, our client
did not knowingly submit a tax return which was false as to a material matter.
I strongly recommend that all concerned parties carefully consider the circumstances noted in the above
cases when weighing our client’s options. Further, after a very careful review of the facts in our client’s
case, when compared to the above cases, the only reasonable conclusion that I can draw is that he is guilty
of a misdemeanor under 26 U.S.C. § 7203 and not guilty of a felony under § 7201 or § 7206.