as well mr nestor is here to represent mrs weathers and so he will leave three that he will take three minutes so this person i would like to take ten minutes all right corporations in order to protect himself personally and his family and those assets if he did file form ten forty returns to the year for the year  a tax statement he was charged with one count of willful evasion or willful tax evasion or defeating the payment of  and it was not assessed when it was a payment it was alleged in the indictment that the affirmative acts under that was filing the ten forty x filing false statements and setting up nominees which were the corporations these corporations however the evidence showed that they were stablished prior to one nine hundred ninety six then he was also charged with five on review what i would like to address two issues two main issues today there are many more covered in the briefs first of all is that the government failed to prove all the requirements for conviction under seventy two a one in seventy two or three and second of all if there were errors by the court in sentencing and beyond the charges and beyond findings jury first of all your honors in tax criminal applies to specific kinds of criminal charges one would be tax cases and the other would be banking cases the reason for that is because of the proliferation of the tax statutes and the multitude of them would be difficult  the government must prove that there was a voluntary intentional violation of a known legal duty but in looking at the specific wording of the statute and really that's where we begin here is what regulations made under authority there are so this statutes congress specifically said that seventy two a line seventy two of three are not imposing that duty themselves what they are and   the statute you're citing isn't it also part of the title it is still just as a matter of simple statutory construction why would you need to look at another statute in  taxes there's income taxes there's gas taxes there is a multitude of taxes twenty years title twenty six imposes so are you saying that the government had to tell them brian and said that one of the things that the government has to prove is that for violations of the tax laws we tax or impose the requirement is that he's just wrong he could be that's the government's burden of proof and they have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt and they have to prove under what the supreme court is that actual knowledge of the law that  exhibit seventy six which was scribe as a summary cherry to go back with the jury during their deliberations my problem there and my problem still profits would be based on her review of what were the limits recorded and with somebody had to prepare that shockley yes and she prepared indicators these are the figures in these documents and this is what they show so that was of the problem that i had was let's assume that you are correct that this is somewhere between a normal summary chart and an expert chart there is every opportunity to present and i wasn't there on underlying documents and whether or not the church was ok during her testimony the issues should have got back to the jury very their deliberations well then then you have to real question and it's now an admitted exhibit right  for and her counsel for the government's response was well if that's what it takes to lay the foundation i don't think the government saw this as an expert now and let me explain the reason for that is she was just merely taking the information from the tax returns calculating how much of what percentage of the gross receipts for expenditures in the prior tax returns and then applying that number on  the chart so it was much more of a mathematical calculation having gone through the prior year's tax returns than anything else but in any event because she was didn't object really to the until one about nine months later that they decided that no they're going to zero out the zero welfare income and suddenly now declare that they own it that they have no income so we start with the self declared income and then we the other evidence shows that that on from that point on and nothing really changes they're still operating these hotels they may be putting some of the receipts in corporate accounts or is nothing wrong necessarily with that provided of course that you were not using on this is your own account which they were the evidence at trial showed numerous checks being taken from these accounts for personal expenses on it also shows part of these individuals to that they knew that they owed taxes and they had evaded it and also based on the thirty years of filing and really nothing changing that they knew that they had an obligation to file returns if the i know that when there's been an extensive briefing in this case i could go on but if the court then it would be happy to answer any questions from the court but if there are no question were used regarding structures that were set up and there regarding the forms that were filed and i would note that in fairness all of those things were signed by mr weathers not by mrs weathers and the other thing is none of that goes to prove what brian said what the supreme court said brian that they had have actual knowledge of the specific provision of the casket their charg corporation there were two separate accounts one that was personal and one that was corporate and the testimony show that she signed two checks i believe when her husband told her to sign those  that there was absolutely no evidence or nothing to apprise the defendant that that's what he would be sentenced and so he was substantially prejudiced by that  further the jury did not make any of the other findings of sophisticated means organized leader any of that and so he was although it was alleged in the superseding indictment that was not put to the jury for a finding