United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-10824

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Tammy Boulyaphonh, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:17-CR-450-1

Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Tammy Bouylaphonh was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to defraud 

the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and of four counts of false 

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

maintains that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support her

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 17, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-10824 Document: 00515981243 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/17/2021
No. 20-10824

2

convictions. Because Boulyaphonh preserved her sufficiency challenge, our 

review is de novo. See United States v. Frye, 489 F.3d 201, 207 (5th Cir. 2007).

Boulyaphonh asserts that the evidence offered at trial did not establish 

that she conspired to defraud the United States by filing false tax returns that 

did not fully report the income from a chiropractic clinic that she owned and 

helped to operate. She argues the evidence did not establish that she entered 

into an agreement to defraud the United States and knowingly conspired to 

pursue the unlawful goal of filing false tax returns. 

The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Government 

and with all reasonable inferences made in favor of the verdict, supported the

conviction. See United States v. Romans, 823 F.3d 299, 311 (5th Cir. 2016); 

United States v. Terrell, 700 F.3d 755, 760 (5th Cir. 2012). The jury could have 

inferred that Boulyaphonh and her husband agreed to file false income tax 

returns, and she knowingly effectuated the reporting of false information in 

those returns. See United States v. Xie, 942 F.3d 228, 240 (5th Cir. 2019); see 

also § 371. The evidence established that Bouylaphonh and her husband, who 

filed joint tax returns, owned the clinic and collaborated in collecting and 

developing the data and recordsthat they supplied to their tax preparer as the 

basis for their business and personal tax returns. These materials, inter alia, 

omitted a substantial amount of income that Bouylaphonh and her husband 

reasonably should have known was reportable—including payments from

attorneys who settled claims for victims of car accidents who were treated at 

the clinic. There was evidence from which a jury could infer that 

Bouylaphonh and her husband knowingly conspired to exclude the payments, 

which Bouylaphonh diverted in part to her personal bank account, to forward

their common aim of reducing their tax liability by underreporting their 

income. Other evidence reflected that Boulyaphonh and her husband knew

that payments to the clinic exceeded their reported income and that they 

Case: 20-10824 Document: 00515981243 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/17/2021
No. 20-10824

3

worked together to hide and to misrepresent their true income. Therefore, 

this claim fails.

Boulyaphonh also argues that the evidence was insufficient to support 

her convictions for false statements on a tax return. She contends that there 

was no evidence that she willfully made false statements on her tax returns, 

and the evidence did not prove that she voluntarily and intentionally sought

to underreport her income. 

The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Government 

and with all reasonable inferences made in favor of the verdict, was sufficient 

to support that Boulyaphonh filed false tax returns. See Romans, 823 F.3d at 

311; Terrell, 700 F.3d at 760. The jury could have inferred that the joint tax 

returns filed by Boulyaphonh and her husband, which were signed under 

penalty of perjury, deliberately understated the income of the clinic and that 

Boulyaphonh committed acts the likely effect of which would be to mislead 

or to conceal. See United States v. Boyd, 773 F.3d 637, 644 (5th Cir. 2014); 

United States v. Chesson, 933 F.2d 298, 304 (5th Cir. 1991). The trial evidence 

reasonably supported the finding that Boulyaphonh, instead of believing that 

a significant portion of the payments to the clinic did not need to be reported, 

ensured that her business and personal tax returns were based on erroneous 

information and willfully engaged in a pattern of underreporting her income. 

See United States v. Stokes, 998 F.2d 279, 281 (5th Cir. 1993); Chesson, 933 

F.2d at 304. While Boulyaphonh argues that the false statements on the tax 

returns were based on a good-faith belief that attorney payments did not have 

to be reported, the jury could have inferred that her failure to disclose or ask 

about the payments was deliberate and that the submission of false tax returns 

was purposeful. See United States v. Charroux, 3 F.3d 827, 831-33 (5th Cir. 

1993); Stokes, 998 F.2d at 281. Her claim that her husband was responsible 

for the false tax returns is belied by her role in preparing the returns and other 

evidence reflecting that she was aware that payments to the clinic were not 

Case: 20-10824 Document: 00515981243 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/17/2021
No. 20-10824

4

reflected on the returns. See United States v. Bolton, 908 F.3d 75, 90 (5th Cir. 

2018); United States v. Barrilleaux, 746 F.2d 254, 256 (5th Cir. 1984). Even if 

there was evidence suggesting that the false statements on the income tax 

returns were not willfully made, the jury could choose among the reasonable 

constructions of the evidence, which, in this case, includes a construction

consistent with guilt. See United States v. Baytank (Houston), Inc., 934 F.2d 

599, 616 (5th Cir. 1991). 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-10824 Document: 00515981243 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/17/2021