months in detention after the completion of his sentence for attempted bribery of a government official dr carter he was released from illinois detention center august two thousand and four on  your honors the issues in this case have narrowed since briefing has been completed the key issue here is one of first impression and that's whether failure to file income taxes and income tax return with the intent to evade taxes and the ninth circuit states that intent to evade taxes does not always equal and intent to defraud in order for the court to rule against dr carty today the court will act to distinguish that authority and the court will also have to make me a lot left to interpret california state statute in a way that's never been interpreted before and petitioners have missed that this is not in line with the court's duty in gray areas to tax return a nice thing my income is a hundred thousand dollars when in fact i know it's that hundred fifty thousand dollars that's one way to be convicted of this particular statute which is what we've got to focus on that would be fraud that's filing a fraudulent return this way when you don't file a return intentionally to evade taxes which is what the conviction was for then you are representing to the well you're not making any method or representation to the government at all you're simply not filing a tax return i mean you're intent is to evade taxes but i'm not sure given the precedents that that we've been discussing on our side in my brief that you can or the supply in any information with intent to evade any tax imposed by this part so there's no disagreement there the intent to evade taxes problem he admitted to is absolutely  thousand and one he pled guilty to attempting to bribe the governor fishel he concedes that crime is a crime involving world for two as petitioners counsel stated the only issue really is whether or not his willful evasion of taxes amounts t as for the standard of review the government would argue that it's a noble but the government asked for chevron deference in this case because while the court is looking at the state statute the ultimate issue is whether or not this definition of what the board did say more than twenty five years ago in a matter of flores that it's not necessarily to have the element of fraud in the phraseology of the crime as long as the inherent nature turpitude interpretation purposes that similar federal statute and they were saying that it's not necessarily the same i think does that cast any light on this question i think when you look at the two statutes the worded differently this one has a sort of a one two punch and based on the jury instructions if he'd played not guilty to this offense the members would have to find him first of all that he violated a known duty he knew he had to file taxes  and he didn't do it if that was just the case then we may not have a crime involving moral turpitude because i might i might not file taxes because i don't think i made enough last year but i'm not necessarily trying to evade or deceive the government however for us to convict someone like dr cartier for him to plead nolo you again have to have a one two punch it has to be a willful violation of a known duty with the seems to be little distinction between a sin of omission where you don't file any taxes whatsoever and when you or on the other hand you you file a false return punish the same and i would argue that in a lot of respects dr card is conduct if in fact he had pled not guilty is worse because by not registering on the radar screen by not filing anything if in fact the government finds out about him they have to prove  few more elements they don't have a smoking gun a phony tax return where he says he only made one hundred dollars last year and they point to the fact that he owns a company in new york but the government didn't have to do that in this case because he effectively pled to all those elements and if he had not pled to the intent to evade he could have never event convicted of this of this statute at most he could have been convicted of a misdemeanor under nineteen for zero one and where he would do six months in prison at most not here again we have two crimes we  a one two punch there's there's there's no way to commit this crime that i can think of that doesn't involve inherent deception i thought of the fact of you know what's the ultimate reason why he did it did he have a tax a these taxes because he wanted to buy a ferrari or did he do it because he wanted to give his money to some charity it really doesn't matter that goes to the motivation down the road and again the punishment but not to the to the conduct it's usually something like child molestation or rape but here we do have the victim and the victim was the state of california they were deprived intentionally of funds that can go up the government help you know the national guard who knows what i know mister grant thank you very much for all your honor so you can be the two minds concerning this statute this case could go one way or the other depending on how you interpret intent to evade taxes i'd just like to say that in order to find against my client you would have to distinguish the united states supreme court authority distinguished prior ninth circuit authority distinguished california authorities which i believe also looked at  and agreed with the point shorten and you would have to do all that and you would get there and what would eventually happen is the guy who's been residing in this country for more than forty years have a family in this country has three children in this country  permanent resident in this country for more than twenty five years to reach that result you'll have to permanently do all these things when the result will be that he will be exiled and vanished to a country that he hasn't been back to in four times in four decades so