P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 40333 Su m m ar yC al endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. T H O M A S B P A R K E R ; M A R G A R E T AP A R K E R , D efen d a n ts- A p p ell a n ts
A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e E aster n D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 1: 08- C R
- 99- 1
B ef ore G A R Z A , C L E M E N T , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * Th om as B
. Parkeran d M ar gar etA
. P ar kerappealtheirconvi c t i ons fort ax f rau d an d f

or fai l i n g t o fil e tax ret u rns, an d f or ai di n g an d ab et t i n g each ot h er i n t he s am e , i n v i o l at i o n o f 2 6 U
. S. C. § § 7 20 3 and7 20 6( 1)
. Tho m as P arker ar gues t hatt he e vi denc e w as nots uf f i c i entt o s uppo rt hi s c onvi c t i on f ort ax f r aud
. Bec au se Thom as Par ke rdi d no tr e ne w hi s m o t i o n f o ra c quit t ala tt he cl ose of al lt h e evi den ce, t h i s c ou rtrevi ew s t h e evi den ce onl y f or a m an i fest United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December

21, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 40333

2 m i scarr i age of

j u st i ce, l ooking to w h et h er t h e rec ord i s devoi d of ev id e n ce of g u ilt. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. G ree n , 2 9 3 F .3d 8 8 6 , 8 9 5 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). T o su p p o r ta c o n v iction forfili n gafals e ta xre tu rn u n d e r § 7 2 0 6 (1 ), e vi de nc e m us tb e s uf f i c i e ntt o s ho w t hat : ( 1) t he def e nda ntw i l f

ul l y m ad e a nd sub scr ibed t o a m ater i al l y fal se t ax retu rn; ( 2) t h e ret u rn contai n ed a w ri t t en de c l ar at i o n t hati tw as m ad e und e rpena l t i e s of pe rj ur y; a nd ( 3) t he de fe nda nt d idn o t b e lie v e t h a tt h e re tu r n w a s tr u e a s to e v e r ym a te r ia l m a tt e r . Un i t ed S t ate s v. C layton , 5 0 6 F .3 d4 0 5 , 4 1 0 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). P a rk er a rg u es o n l y th a t he didn ot “w i l l full y” d efrau d t h e G ov ern m en t. Bec aus e Par ke rdo e s no t c hal l e nge t he s uf f i c i e nc y o f

t he e vi de nc e t o s upp o r tt he o th e r§ 7 2 0 6 (1 ) c r ite r ia , t h is c o u r t n e e dn o t a d d r e s s th e s a m e . S ee G r e e nlaw v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 128 S. C t . 2559, 2564 ( 2008)
. Parke rdoe s notel abor at e o n w hat con sti tu tedh i s “l eg i ti m a te con fusion
. ” M ore ov er, h i s ar g u m e n t ign ore s th a t a cert i f i ed p u bl i c accoun t an t , u si n g P arker’ s c om pu t eri zed accoun t i n g recor ds f or hi s busi nes s, i nf

or m ed Parker t hathe o w ed t axes . Parke rac know l edge d hi s t ax l i abil i t y by en t eri n g i n t o an i n st al l m en t pl an w i t h t h e I R S t o payt h e t ax. Th u s, th e re c o r dis n o t d e v o ido f e v id e n c e th a t P a r k e r h a d k n o w le d g e th a t h e s h o u ld hav e r e po r t e d m o r e i nc o m e t han he di d w he n he f i l e d a m e nde d 1 04 0- X r e t ur ns a n dth a t h e w a s th e r e fo r e g u iltyo f ta xfr a u d
. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. B i shop , 412 U .S
. 3 4 6 , 3 6 0 (19 7 3 ). T o esta b l i sh a vi ol at i on o f § 7203, t he G ove r nm enthad t o pr ove ( 1) t hat Par ke rw as requi r e d t o f i l e ar e t ur n; ( 2) t hathe fail e d t o f i l e ar e t ur n; a nd ( 3 ) th a t t h e fa ilu r e to file are tu r n w a s w illfu l. S e eC lay to n , 506 F. 3d at408. Parkeragai n ar gues onl y t hatthe G ove r nm entfai l ed t o pr ove t hathe “w i l l f ul l y” fai l ed to f

i l e t ax ret u rns becau se he h ad a “ reasona bl e bel i ef t h at he w as not l i abl e t o f

i l e ataxret urn. ” Parkerpoi nt s t o no t hi ng t o s upporthi s as se r t i on t hat h i s bel i ef w as reasona bl e. M oreover, evi den ce f rom m u l t i pl e sources i n di cat ed t hatt he Par ke r s ’b us i ne s s e ar ne d s ubs t ant i al i nc o m e f o rt he y e ar s i n q ue s t i o n. Th er ef or e, any pur por t ed be l i ef t hath e w a s n otr equi r ed t o f i l e a n i nco m e t axN o. 09- 40333

3 r et urn w as notr eas on a b l e. The r ec or d i s notdev oi d of ev i denc e t hatTh om as Parkerw as gui l t y o f fai l i ng t o f

i l e t ax r et urns f

or t he year s 2002 t hro ugh 2006. M argaret P arker argu es t h at t h e di st ri ctcourtcom m i t t ed reversibl e err or w h en i tadm i t t ed B on n i e E dw ards’ s docu m e n ts t i t l ed “Su m m ary of T axp ayer Cont ac t” b e c aus e t he s um m ar i e s w e r e he ar s aye vi de nc e . The G o ve r nm e nt ar gues , am ong o t hert hi ngs, t hati t s exhibi t s 18Aand 18B w ere nothear sa y be c aus e t he y w e r e no to f fe r e d f o rt he t r ut h o f

t he m at t e ra s s e r t e d t he r e i n. E xh ibi t18B contai n ed on l y t h e st atem e n ts of B on n i e E dw ards an d i s, th e r e fo r e , n o t h e a r s a y . S eeF ED . R. E VID . 801(c )
. To t he e xt entt hatE xhibi t18A q u oted f

rom a m em ora n d u m b yt h e P a rk ers th a t w a s p rev i ou sly de l ive red to E dw ar ds and w as o s t ens ibl y o f fer ed t o pr ove M ar gar etParker ’ s c om pl i c i t y i n t ax fr a u d , it is h e a r s a y . Se ei d. T h e exh ibi t , how ev e r, fal l s un der t h e hea rsay excepti on f or busi n ess r e c o r ds
. Al t ho ughEdw ar ds ha d r e t i r e d b y t he t i m e o f t r i al , he r no t e s w e r e m ad e o n I RS For m 9 29 7, w hi c h i s ti t l ed “ Sum m ar y o f Tax pa ye rCont ac t . ” Tha tt he no t e s w e r e m ad e o n a n I RS f o r m i ndi c at e s t hati tw as t he r e gul arpr ac t i c e o f t he IR S to m a k e s u c h are c o r d
. S eeF ED . R. E VID . 80 3( 6)
. Fur t herm ore, E dw ards t e s t i f i e d t hatt he I RS r e quir e d he rt o ke e p s uc h r e c o r ds
. Edw ar ds r e c o gni z e d t he r e c o r d s a n dk n e w th e yw e r e fr o m h e ro ffic e . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. B ox , 50 F. 3d 34 5, 35 6 ( 5t h Ci r . 19 95 )
. Edw ar ds w as t he r e f o r e a qua l i f

i e d w i t ne s s , an d s he su ff i ci en tl y a u th en ti ca tedE xh ib i t 18 Asu ch tha t it fa l l s u n d er th e ex cep ti on to h e a r s a ye n u n c ia te din R u le 8 0 3 (6 ). F ED . R. E VID . 8 0 3 (6 ); B ox , 50 F. 3d at356. T h e d i stri ct cou rt did n ot ab u s e it s discretion i n all ow i n g E xh ib i t 18 Ai n to e v id e n c e . S eeUn itedS ta tes v. Fra n k lin , 5 6 1 F .3 d3 9 8 , 4 0 4 (5 th C ir .), cer t. d enie d , 1 2 9 S . C t. 2 8 4 8 (2 0 0 9 ). AF F I RMED.