Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-14-10139/USCOURTS-ca9-14-10139-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steven Frank Boitano
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

STEVEN FRANK BOITANO,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 14-10139

D.C. No.

5:11-cr-00585-EJD-1

OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

June 12, 2015—San Francisco, California

Filed August 12, 2015

Before: Mary M. Schroeder, Sandra S. Ikuta,

and Morgan Christen, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Christen

 Case: 14-10139, 08/12/2015, ID: 9643824, DktEntry: 41-1, Page 1 of 10
2 UNITED STATES V. BOITANO

SUMMARY*

Criminal Law

The panel reversed convictions for three felony counts of

making a false statement under penalty of perjury on personal

income tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1).

The panel held that the convictions must be reversed

because circuit precedent establishes that “filing” is an

element of a conviction under § 7206(1), and the government

now concedes that the record does not support that the returns

were filed.

COUNSEL

David M. Kirsch (argued), Law Office of David M. Kirsch,

San Jose, California; and Charles M. Sevilla (argued), Law

Office of Charles Sevilla, San Diego, California, for

Defendant-Appellant.

Anne M. Voigts (argued), Assistant United States Attorney,

Barbara J. Valliere, Chief, Appellate Division, and Melinda

Haag, United States Attorney, San Francisco, California, for

Plaintiff-Appellee.

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

 Case: 14-10139, 08/12/2015, ID: 9643824, DktEntry: 41-1, Page 2 of 10
UNITED STATES V. BOITANO 3

OPINION

CHRISTEN, Circuit Judge:

Steven Boitano appeals his jury convictions for three

felony counts of making a false statement under penalty of

perjury on personal income tax returns in violation of

26 U.S.C. § 7206(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291 and we reverse Boitano’s felony convictions.

BACKGROUND

During the period relevant to this appeal, Boitano was a

partner in Boitano, Sargent & Lilly, an accounting firm. His

responsibilities included preparing tax returns and

representing clients during IRS audits, but Boitano did not

file his own income tax returns for the years 1991 to 2007. 

The IRS undertook an examination in 1992/1993 and in 2004. 

Boitano still did not file any returns, and his case was referred

to the IRS’s Special Enforcement Program.

In June 2009, Special Enforcement Program Agent Nick

Connors requested a meeting with Boitano regarding his

failure to file returns for 2001 through 2007. Connors and

Boitano ultimatelymet three times. During the third meeting,

Boitano handed Connors income tax returns for 2001, 2002,

and 2003. The returns were signed under penalty of perjury

by Boitano and his wife. Connors stamped the first page of

the returns “Internal Revenue Service, SB/SE - Compliance

Field, Sep 04, 2009, Area 7, San Francisco, CA,” and hand

wrote “delinquent return secured by exam” on the first page

of each. Per Boitano’s request, Connors copied the first page

of the returns and gave the copies to Boitano as receipts.

 Case: 14-10139, 08/12/2015, ID: 9643824, DktEntry: 41-1, Page 3 of 10
4 UNITED STATES V. BOITANO

The returns Boitano handed to Connors reported

“estimated tax payments” that had not been made. The 2001

return reported a $26,000 payment, the 2002 return reported

a $38,000 payment, and the 2003 return reported a $57,000

payment. In fact, the government calculated that Boitano

owed the IRS $52,953.80 for 2001, $72,797.00 for 2002, and

$104,545.94 for 2003.

Agent Connors quickly realized that the IRS did not have

record of receiving the claimed estimated tax payments. 

Therefore, instead of sending the returns to the IRS service

center for processing, he confronted Boitano with the

discrepancy. According to Connors, Boitano “physically got

a little pale and said that he was not sure why there [were]

differences.” Soon thereafter, Connors sent Boitano a letter

asking that he substantiate the estimated tax payments, or, if

those estimates were not correct, that he identify the correct

estimated amounts with “a written statement dated and signed

explaining in detail why you believed the estimated payments

to be the amounts reported on the delinquent returns filed on

9/4/09.” Boitano never responded.

Boitano was indicted and charged with three counts of

making false statements under 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1). Section

7206(1) establishes that it is a felony for any person to

“[w]illfully make[] and subscribe[] any return, statement, or

other document, which contains or is verified by a written

declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, and

which he does not believe to be true and correct as to every

material matter.” Boitano was also charged with three

misdemeanor counts of failure to file taxes under 26 U.S.C.

§ 7203. He pleaded guilty to the three misdemeanors, but

 Case: 14-10139, 08/12/2015, ID: 9643824, DktEntry: 41-1, Page 4 of 10
UNITED STATES V. BOITANO 5

proceeded to trial on the felony charges.1

Boitano argued at trial that filing is an essential element

of § 7206(1) and that his act of handing the returns to Agent

Connors did not constitute “filing” within the applicable IRS

statute and regulations. The government agreed that filing is

an element of the charged offense, but argued the filing

element was satisfied by the uncontradicted evidence

showing that Boitano handed fraudulent returns to Agent

Connors. The district court agreed with the government. 

Over objection, Connors was permitted to testify that Boitano

“filed 2001, 2002, and 2003 delinquent tax returns with me.” 

Connors provided additional foundational testimony that the

IRS “treat[ed] the[] returns as having been filed” on

September 4, 2009, the dayBoitano handed them to Connors.

The court instructed the jury that in order to convict

Boitano, it had to find beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant made and signed a tax

return for the years 2001, 2002 or 2003 that he

knew contained false information as to a

material matter;

Second, the return contained a written

declaration that it was being signed subject to

the penalties of perjury; and

Third, in filing the false tax return, the

defendant acted willfully.

The court did not define “filing” for the jury.

 

1

 The misdemeanor convictions are not at issue in this appeal.

 Case: 14-10139, 08/12/2015, ID: 9643824, DktEntry: 41-1, Page 5 of 10
6 UNITED STATES V. BOITANO

After Boitano was found guilty on the three felony counts,

he moved for acquittal or a new trial on the basis that the

evidence did not show his returns had been filed. The district

court denied the motion, ruling that Boitano “brought these

returns and handed them to the agent for the purpose of filing

and then waited for the stamps to be stamped on them.”

The district court sentenced Boitano to 5 months’

imprisonment on each of the misdemeanor convictions, to run

concurrently, and 36 months’ imprisonment on each of the

felony convictions, also to run concurrently. The 5-month

and 36-month periods were to run consecutively. Boitano

timely appealed. He has served his prison term for the

misdemeanor convictions and is free on bail pending the

resolution of this appeal.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Challenges to the sufficiencyof the evidence are reviewed

de novo. United States v. Stewart, 420 F.3d 1007, 1014 (9th

Cir. 2005). We ask whether, viewing the evidence in the light

most favorable to the government, “any rational trier of fact

could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond

a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319

(1979) (internal quotation marks omitted).

DISCUSSION

Boitano’s opening appellate brief reiterates the position

he argued unsuccessfully in the district court—that the

evidence did not show the subject returns were “filed” within

the meaning of the applicable IRS statutes and regulations

 Case: 14-10139, 08/12/2015, ID: 9643824, DktEntry: 41-1, Page 6 of 10
UNITED STATES V. BOITANO 7

when he handed them to Agent Connors.2 The government’s

response brief takes an unusual twist. Reversing its prior

position, the government now concedes that “there is a single

definition of ‘filing’ that applies in both the civil and criminal

context,” and that “the record does not support that the

returns here were filed.” The government agrees with

Boitano that Connors’s testimonythat the returns were “filed”

when Boitano handed them to him was incorrect. The

government’s new argument is that filing is not an element of

the charged offense because, “by its own terms, [§] 7206(1)

does not require the government to prove ‘filing’ as defined

by the IRS regulations to establish a violation of the statute.” 

The government reasons, “under a correct understanding of

Section 7206(1), [Boitano’s] actions violated the statute by

his completing a return, signing it, and taking actions by

which he gave up any right of self-correction.” (Emphasis

added.) Notably, the government concedes that if it had to

prove the returns were filed within the meaning of the IRS

regulations, then Boitano’s convictions must be reversed. 

Binding precedent supports Boitano’s position.

Our court has long held that “filing” is an element of a

§ 7206(1) violation. In United States v. Hanson, we affirmed

a conviction for making false statements in violation of

§ 7206(1) where the defendant “fil[ed] false IRS forms that

reported payments [defendant] had never made and claimed

a tax refund [defendant] was not due.” 2 F.3d 942, 944 (9th

Cir. 1993). In so ruling, we stated that “[t]o prove a violation

of § 7206(1), making false statements, the government must

2 The government asserts that under 26 U.S.C. § 6091(b)(4) and 26

C.F.R. § 1.6091-2, returns are deemed filed ifthey are electronically filed,

mailed to the appropriate IRS service center, or hand-delivered to an agent

authorized to receive them.

 Case: 14-10139, 08/12/2015, ID: 9643824, DktEntry: 41-1, Page 7 of 10
8 UNITED STATES V. BOITANO

prove that the defendant (1) filed a return, statement, or other

document that was false as to a material matter . . . .”3Id. at

945.

The government cites numerous reasons for its new

contention that § 7206(1) does not require filing, but it offers

no intervening authority for its argument that it should only

be required to show that Boitano gave up the right of selfcorrection. It argues: (1) the statute, by its own terms, does

not require proof of filing; (2) the Supreme Court has not

identified filing as an element of the offense; (3) interpreting

the statute not to require filing makes sense because the

statute is not limited in its scope to tax returns; (4) the

statute’s legislative history does not establish that filing is an

element of the offense; and (5) filing a document is one way,

but not the only way, to satisfy the statute.

We are bound, however, by Hanson’s plain and explicit

identification of “filing” as an element of a § 7206(1) offense. 

Id. (“To prove a violation of § 7206(1) . . . the government

must prove that the defendant (1) filed a return. . . .”); see

also United States v. Tucker, 133 F.3d 1208, 1218 (9th Cir.

1998). The government’s argument that this language is

either unnecessary to the decision or is dictum is

unpersuasive. Dictum is “an unnecessary statement in a

published opinion that is not the result of reasoned

consideration.” Sinotes-Cruz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1190,

3 The Ninth Circuit’s pattern jury instructions, which were used here,

reflect this rule: “In order for the defendant to be found guilty of [violating

26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)], the government must prove each of the following

elements beyond a reasonable doubt: . . . Third, in filing the false tax

return, the defendant acted willfully.” See Ninth Circuit Pattern Criminal

Jury Instruction § 9.39.

 Case: 14-10139, 08/12/2015, ID: 9643824, DktEntry: 41-1, Page 8 of 10
UNITED STATES V. BOITANO 9

1203 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted); see

also United States v. Johnson, 256 F.3d 895, 914 (9th Cir.

2001) (en banc) (“We hold that . . . where a panel confronts

an issue germane to the eventual resolution of the case, and

resolves it after reasoned consideration in a published

opinion, that ruling becomes the law of the circuit, regardless

of whether doing so is necessary in some strict logical

sense.”). Hanson’s language reflects our court’s reasoned

consideration of a matter that was both germane to the case

and necessary to the decision. Hanson specifically argued

that his tax returns were not “filed” because the IRS never

processed them. 2 F.3d at 946. The question on appeal was

whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. 

See id. at 945–46. We concluded it was because “[a] return

is ‘filed’ at the time it is delivered to the IRS,” and the

government showed “that Hanson personally mailed the

forms and that the IRS received them.” Id. at 946.

Even if we disagreed with Hanson’s itemization of a

§ 7206(1) offense’s elements, as a three-judge panel we are

bound by prior panel opinions and can only reexamine them

when “the reasoning or theory of our prior circuit authority is

clearly irreconcilable with the reasoning or theory of

intervening higher authority.” Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d

889, 893 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). There is no such

intervening authority here. The government argues that a

Supreme Court case that preceded Hanson, United States v.

Bishop, 412 U.S. 346 (1973), indicates that the Court has not

included filing as an element of a § 7206(1) offense. But in

Bishop, filing was not contested. See id. at 350 (“The

incorrectness of the returns as filed . . . was not disputed at

trial.”). We know of no Supreme Court case holding that

“filing” is not a required element under § 7206(1).

 Case: 14-10139, 08/12/2015, ID: 9643824, DktEntry: 41-1, Page 9 of 10
10 UNITED STATES V. BOITANO

In sum, because circuit precedent establishes that “filing”

is an element of a conviction under § 7206(1), and the

government now concedes “the record does not support that

the returns here were filed,” Boitano’s felony convictions

must be reversed.4

CONCLUSION

We reverse Boitano’s convictions for three felony counts

of making a false statement under penalty of perjury on

personal income tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C.

§ 7206(1).

REVERSED.

4

 Because we reverse Boitano’s convictions on this ground, we decline

to address his remaining arguments.

 Case: 14-10139, 08/12/2015, ID: 9643824, DktEntry: 41-1, Page 10 of 10