2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 10-29-2007 

# U SA v . M cK ee P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 05-3297

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . M cKe e " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 280. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/280P RE CE DE NT I AL

UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT No: 05-3297 UN I TE D ST AT ES O F AM ERI CA

v. KEVI N MCKEE, Appellant

No: 05-3469 UN I TE D ST AT ES O F AM ERI CA

v. I NGE DONATO, Appellant

No: 05-33572 UN I TE D ST AT ES O F AM ERI CA

v. J OSEPH DONATO, Appellant

________ O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r t h e D is tr ic t o f

N e w J e rs e y , ( D . C . N os . 04- cr - 00216- 3, 04- cr - 00216- 2 & 04- cr - 00216- 1)

D istric t Ju d g e : H o n . Je ro m e B . S im a n d le A r gued: N ovember 8, 2006 Be f o r e : S CI RI CA , Ch i e f

J u d g e , M c KE E a n d S T AP L E T ON, C i r cui tJ udges ( O pi ni on fi l ed: O ct ober29, 2007)
E i l een J . O ’ C onnor , A s s i s t antA t t or neyG ener al J ohn H i nt on, I I I ( A r gued) A l an H echtkopf G re g o ryV icto r D a v is3 B ria n D . G a lle T ax D i vi s i on D epart m entof J us t i ce PostO ffi ce Box 502 W as hi ngt on, D . C . 20044 A t t or ney s forA ppel l ee, U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce Pet erG ol dber ger( A r gued) P a m e la A . W ilk 50 R i t t enhous e Pl ace A r dm or e, PA 19003- 2276 A t t orneyfor A pp el l ants , Jo se p h D o n a to a n d In g e D o n a to R occo C. C i ppar one, J r . , E s q. ( A r gued) 203- 205 B l ack H or s e Pi ke H addon, H ei ght s , N J 08035 A t t or neyforA ppel l ant , K evi n M cK ee G eor ge S. L eone, E s q. O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 970 B r oad St r eet R oom 700 N ew ar k, N J 07102 A t t orne yfo rA pp e l l e e , U SA

OP I NI ON4 M cK E E , C i r cui tJ udge. D efe ndant s , K evi n M cK ee, J os eph D onat o, and I nge D o n a to c h a llen g e th e ir c o n v ictio n s f o r c o n sp ira c yto o b stru c t a go vernm ent functi on , fai l ure to payfede ral em ploym ent t axes, and fai l ure t o fil e i nd i vidual i nco m e t ax returns for cer t ai n y ears . E ach de fenda ntm akes s peci fi c cl ai m s r egar di ng hi s / her convi ct ion, and theycol l ect i vel ychal l enge the j ur yi ns t ruct i on on t he cons pi r acy count , t he s uffi ci encyof t he evi dence , s ever al evi dent i aryrul i ngs , and t he sent ence s t hatw er e i m pos ed. Si nce w e a g re e th a t th e d istric t c o u rt’s ju ryin stru c tio n c o n stru c tiv e ly
am end ed the i nd i ct m ent, w e w i l l vacate t h e D e fend ants ’ convi ct i ons o n t he t ax eva s i on char ges i n C ount s 2 t hr ough 13
a n d r e ma n d f

o ra n e w t r i a l o n t h o s e c h a r g e s . I n a d d i t i o n , we w i l l r ever s e I nge D onat o’ s convi ct i on on C ount s 14 and 16 beca us e the evi dence w as i ns uffi ci ent t o es t abl i s h gui l tbey ond
a re aso n ab le do u b t, a n d instruct the d istri ct co u rtto en ter aInasm uch as w e are vac a tin g each of the defe nd ants ’ 1 convi ct i ons on C ount s 2 t hr ough 13, and I nge’ s convi ct i ons on tw o c o u n ts, w e n e e d n o t a d d re ss th e c laim s o f e rro r th a t p e rta in to se n tenc ing . W e w il l, h o w ev er, ad d ress c ertain e v iden tia ry rul i ngs t hatar e cha l l enged i n t hi s appea l as t he s ame i s s ues m ay agai n ar i s e i f t he D efe ndant s ar e r etr i ed on the tax evas i on charges. 5 j udgm entof ac qui t t al on t hos e count s on r emand. 1 I . Backg r ound Dur i n g t h e p e r i o d c h a r g e d i n t h e i n d i c t me n t , J o s eph D o n a to a n d K e v in M c K e e o w n e d a n d o p e ra ted M c K e e -D o n a to C ons t ruct i on C om pany ( “the Par t ner s hi p”) , a s m al l N ew J er s ey c a rp e n trya n d h o m e re n o v a ti o n b u sin e ss . In g e D o n a to fu n cti o n ed as th e P a rtn ersh ip’s b o o k k ee p er. A ll three are l ongs t andi ng m embe r s of t he R eform ed I s r ael of Y aw eh ( “R I Y ”) , a s m al l r el i gi ous s ect f o u nded byL eo V ol pe that oppos es paym entof t axes bas ed up o n t he mem ber s ’ r el i gi ous o p p o s itio n to w a r a n d th e ta x e s th a t f u n d it.6 T he P ar t ner s hi p empl oy ed mem ber s of R I Y as w el l as n o n -m e m b e rs. W h e n p ro v id in g th e P a rtn e rsh ip ’s p a yro ll
r ecor ds t o acc ount ant s forpr epar at i on of quar t er l ypayr ol l t ax re tu rn s (IR S F o rm 9 4 1 ), In g e D o n a to o m itt e d p a yro ll i n f o r ma t i o n f

o rt h e e mp l o y e e s wh o we r e me mb e r s o f RI Y. Con s e q u e n t l y , f

e d e r a l wi thhol di ng t axes w er e notdeduct ed fr om t hei rpay chec ks . H ow ever , t he corr ectpayr ol l i nfor m at i on w as pr ovide d forempl oy ees w ho w er e notm ember s of R I Y , and t hei rt axes w er e pr oper l yw i t hhel d fr om t hei rpay chec ks . T he
om i s s i on r es ul t ed i n i ncompl et e and i nacc ur at e quart er l yt ax r etur ns fort he P artne r s hi p fort he appl i cabl e y ear s . T he Par t ner s hi p al s o fai l ed t o w i t hhol d or pay empl oy m ent t axes t hat
s houl d have be en col l ect ed fr om R IY - m ember / empl oy ees for t hos e s ame quar t ers. I n addi t i on, K evi n M cK ee a nd J os eph D onat o fai l ed t o fi l e t hei r i ndi vi dual fede r al i ncome t ax r etur ns fo r t h e y ea rs 19 9 7 thro u g h 2 0 0 0 . A s w e sh all ex p lai n , Jo sep h ’sThe Donatos werecharg ed in C o un t s 1 4 through 17 and 2 McKe e in Counts 18 through 21. 7 fai l ur e t o fi l e had c ons equenc es forI nge, w ho w as al s o char ged
w i t h fail ure t o fil e for t ho se y ears . K evi n M cK ee a nd t he D onat os w er e ea ch cha r ged
s epar at el yw i t h cons pi r acyt o defr aud the U ni t ed S t at es ( C ount 1 ), an d em p loy m en t t ax ev asio n (C o u n ts 2 thro u g h 1 3 ). In
a d d iti o n , th e y w e re e a c h c h a rg e d w ith f a ilu re to f

il e th e ir i ndi vi dual fede r al i ncome t ax r etur ns for t he y ear s 1997 t hr ough 2000, i n vi ol at i on of 26 U . S.C . § 7 2 0 3. ( C ount s 14 t hr ough 21) . T he courtgr ant ed I nge’ s m ot i on forj udgm entof ac qui t t al 2 on C ount s 15 and 17, char gi ng herw i t h fai l ur e t o fi l e for1997 t hr ough 2000, beca us e the evi dence di d no t es ta bl i s h t hats he had i ncome forthos e t ax y ear s . T he courtdeni ed herm ot i on for j udgm entof ac qui t t al on C ount s 14 and 16 bas ed upon evi dence th a t w e w ill d isc u ss d e tail be lo w . T h e ju ry re tu rn e d g u ilty8 verdi ct s against al l D efen dan t s on each o f t he rem ai ning cou nts , and thi s appea l fol l ow ed thei rs ent enci ng. I I . D i s c us s i on. A . C ons t r uc t i ve A m e ndm e nt t o t he Jur y I ns t r uc t i ons D efe ndan t s al l cont end thatt he j ur yi ns t ruct i ons on C o u n ts 2 -1 3 w e re e rro n e o u s b e c a u se th e yc o n stru c tiv e ly
am end ed t he i nd i ct m ent. D efen dan t s con cede t hey did no trai se this argu m en t in the D istri ct C o u rt , b u t cl aim they are nevert hel es s ent i t l ed t o rel i ef be caus e the i ns t ruct i ons c o n s titu te d p la in e rr o r. See Fed. R . C r i m . P. 52(b). W e agr ee. U ni t ed Stat es v. O l ano , 5 0 7 U . S . 7 2 5 (19 9 3 ). A n i ndi ct m enti s cons t ruct i v e l yamended w hen evi dence , a rg u m e n ts, o r th e d istric t co u rt’s ju ryin stru c tio n s e f f e c tiv e ly “amend[s ] t he i ndi ct m ent bybr oadeni ng t he pos s i bl e bas es for convi ct i on fr om t hatw hi ch appe ar ed i n t he i ndi ct m ent . ” U ni t ed9 St at es v. Lee , 3 5 9 F .3 d 1 9 4 , 2 0 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). W e h a v e h e ld t hata cons truct i ve amendm enti s an exc ept i onal cat egoryof
err orbeca us e i tvi ol at es a bas i c r i ghtof cr i m i nal defe ndant s , t he g ra n d ju ry g u a ra n te e o f th e F if t h A m e n d m e n t. Id . at154 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( appl y i ng Un i t e d S ta t e s v . A da ms , 252 F. 3d 276 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 )) . “A cons t ruct i ve amendm entt o t he i ndi ct m ent cons t i tutes ‘ a pers e vi ol at i on of t he fi ft h amendm ent ’ s gr and j ur ycl au se.’” Id . at148 ( quot i ng U nit ed S t ates v. C ast ro , 776 F . 2 d 1 1 1 8 , 1 1 2 1 -22 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 5 )). A cons t ruct i ve amendm ent of t he cha rge s ag ai ns ta def endantdepr i ves t he def endantof hi s / her“s u b stan t i al r i ghtt o be tr i ed onl yon char ges pr es ent ed i n an i ndi ct m entr etur ned bya gr and j ur y . ” U ni t ed St at es v. S y me , 2 7 6 F . 3 d 1 3 1 , 1 4 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) (cit ati o n o m itted). T h u s, w h ere a tri al co u rtco n stru cti v elyam en d s a ju ryCourts of Appea l s aresplit on whether a c onstructive 3 amendment to an indictment a re p e r se re ve rs ibl e e rror

un de r p la in error re view. Compare United States v. Floresc a , 38 F.3d 706, 712-13 (4th Cir. 1994) ( en banc ) (holding thatco nstructive amendments, whic h are pe r sereversible under harmless e rror analysis are also p e r

se reve rsi bleun de r p la in error analysis ) w ith United States v. Fletc her , 121 F.3d 187, 192- 93 (5th Cir. 1997) (re fusingto reve rse a

constructive amendment absent an objection beca use “it could not haveaff ecte d the outcome of

the trial” a

nd there fo retherewa s n o p re judic e un de r a

plain error

analysis ); United Sta te s v . R e ms za , 7 7 F . 3 d 1 0 3 9 , 1 0 4 4 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 9 6 ) ( “ Inth e c o nte xt of plain error

re view, theame ndme nt m us t c on sti tu tea

mis takeso se rio u s th at b ut f

o r it th e d e f e n d ant w o u ld

p r o b a b ly h av e been acquitted in order for

us to rever se.”) (internal quotat i ons omitt ed). In United States v. Syme , 2 76 F .3 d 1 31 , 154 (3 d Cir. 20 02 ), wehe ld that alth ou gh co ns tr

uc tiv e ame ndme nts areno t pe r sereversible, they g ive rise to a rebuttable presumption of prejudice . 10 in s tr u c tio n , o u r p la in e rr o r a n a lysis p re s u m e s p re ju d ic e . I d. 3 H e re , in in stru c tin g th e ju rya b o u t co n d u c t th a t co u ld
e sta b lish th e c h a rg e d c o n sp ira c y, th e c o u rt in c lu d e d f a ili n g to
r epor ti nform at i on t o t he Par t ner s hi p’ s acc ount ant , and f a lsif y in g b o o k s a n d re c o rd s. T h e c o u rt e x p lain e d : V ar i ous s chemes and devi ces m ay be us ed i n an att empt t o evade ordefe ata t ax. A ffi r m at i ve att empt s t o evade fede r al empl oy m entt axes i ncl ude, forexampl e, fi l i ngIn adoptingthis instruction, the cour t apparently

relied upon 4 the points for cha

rg e that the g overnme nt had tendered, and may not have realized that the italicized languag e included c onduct that was su pp or te d b y te sti mony , b ut n ot c ha

rg e d in theindic tme nt. These taxes were not duefrom any individual, but from the 5 employer, McKee -Donato Construction Company . Def endants were pros e c ute d a s th ird p artie s, a lle g e d to haveatte mpt e d to e va de(o r t o have aided and a

betted the attempted evasion of) the taxes due from the Partner ship as the “e mployer.” 11 f a l s e Em p l o y e r s Qu a r t e r l yF e d e r a l Ta x Re tu r n s ( F o r ms 9 4 1 ), f al s i f yi ng b o o ks and r ecor ds s o as t o conce althe paym ent ofw ages and the em

pl oym ent

t axes due ther eon, or f a i l i n g t o r e

p o r t t o y o u r a c c o u n t a n t a l l o f th e w ages pai d t o em

pl oyee s . A p p en d ix (“A p p ”). 98 4 (em p h asis ad d ed ). 4 T he s uper s edi ng i ndi ct m entchar ged ea ch of the D efe ndant s w i t h at t empt ed eva s i on of empl o y m en t t axes by pr epar i ng, s i gni ng, and caus i ng t he fi l i ng of fa l s e and f r audul ent fede r al empl oy m entt ax r etur ns . A pp. 73, i n C ount s 2 t hr ough 1 3 . E ven t hough t he governm enti nt r oduced e vi dence t hat 5 b o o k s a n d re c o rd s w e re f a lsif ied a n d in f

o rm a tio n w a s w ith h e ld12 fr om t he Par t ner s hi p’ s acc ount ant , t hat conduct w as n ever char ged i n t he i ndi ct m ent . A ccor di ngl y , t he court ’ s i ns t ruct i ons had the ef

fec tof br oadeni ng t he i ndi ct m ent t o i ncl ude conduc t notchar ged i n t he i ndi ct m ent ; co n ductt hatgovernm ent
w itn e s s e s te s tif

ie d a b o u t d u ri n g th e c o u rs e o f th e tr ia l. D efe ndant s ar gue thatt he exa m pl es of t ax eva s i on expl ai ned i n t he j ur yi ns t ruct i on butnotchar ged i n t he i ndi ct m enti m pr oper l ybr oadene d the i ndi ct m enti n vi ol at i on of St i r one v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 3 6 1 U . S . 2 1 2 (19 6 0 ). T h ere , the C o u rt held t hat a defend ant’ s Fifth A m end m ent r i gh tt o d ue p rocess i ncl udes t he r i ghtt o be t r i ed onl y on char ges r etur ned bya gr and jury , an d that ri g h t i s v iolated if th e e v iden ce an d jury i ns t ruct i ons br oaden t he pos s i bl e gr ounds forconvi ct i on bey ond th a t a lle g e d in th e in d ic tm e n t. Id . a t 2 1 8 -1 9 . T h e g o v e rn m e n t c o n c e d e s th a t th e ju ryin stru c tio n s d idSee also United States v . Johnson , 2 48 F .3 d 6 55, 6 65 (7 th 6 Cir. 2001) (admission of evide nce of pre- conspiratorial events did not 13 n o t m a tch th e c h a rg e s c o n tain e d in th e su p e rse d in g in d ictm e n t. H ow ever , t he governm entr emi nds u s that w e mustas s es s t he ju ryin stru c tio n a s a w h o le a n d re lyu p o n th e “ a lm o st in v a ria b le
a s s u m p tio n o f

th e la w th a t ju ri e s f

o llo w th e irin s tr u c tio n s .” R i cha rdson v. M

arsh , 481 U . S. 200, 207 ( 1987) . T he g o v e rn m e n t c ites n u m e ro u s c a se s f ro m o th e r ju risd ictio n s to s uppor ti t s cont ent i on t hat“no cons t ruct i ve amendm entar i s es fr om t he admi s s i on of ac t s notchar ged i n t he i ndi ct m entw hen t h e c o u r t ’ s i n s t ru c t i o n s t o t h e j u r yp r e c l u d e t h e p o s s i b i l i t yt hat t he def endantw as convi ct ed on thos e ac t s . ” See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. G onz al ez , 661 F. 2d 488, 492 ( 5t h C i r . 1 9 8 1) ( no c o n stru c tiv e a m e n d m e n t in trial f o r c o n s p ir a c yto d istrib u te
m ethaquaa l one, des pi t e admi s s i on i nt o evi dence of ot hert ypes o f il lega l narc o ti cs). 6broa de n s c op e of c on sp ir a c y

c ha rg e d a nd there for e c on str

uc tiv e ly amend the jur

y instruction); United States v. Novak, 217 F.3d 566, 575 n.22 (8th C i r. 2000) (no c onstructive ame ndment where cour t a dmi tte d e vid e nc e of

wron g do ingprior

to t hetim e pe ri od

a lle g e d in th e in dict ment) ; U nited States v. Parede

s-Rodriguez , 160 F.3d 49, 55- 56 (1 st C ir . 1 99 8) (n o c on str uc tiv e ame ndment: “ these tti ngfo rt h, in approximate form, of [a] date in the indictment does not pre clude the admission of evidenc e re lating to e vents which oc curred ea rlier . ”); United States v. Frank, 156 F.3d 3 32, 337-38 (2d Cir. 1998) (the overt a ct eleme nt of a c onspiracy charg e may

be satisfied by admission o f ev i d en ce of an ove rt ac t that is not specified in the indic tme nt, so lon ga s the re is no pr e judic e to t

hede fend ant) ; United States v. Lokey , 945 F.2d 825, 831- 32 (5th Cir. 1 9 9 1 ) (proof of the conspirac y ’s exist encebefore F ebrua ry 1987 was not a constructive am e n dm e nto f

th e i n d i c tm e nt) ; Uni ted States v. Sc hnabel , 939 F.2d 197, 203 (4th Cir. 1991) (no c onstructive ame ndment wh er e jury ins tr uc tio ns did not va

ry from t heindic tme nt) ; United States v. Medina , 761 F.2d 12, 16 ( 1st Cir. 1985) (the possibil ity that the jury might haveconvicted de fenda nt of a diff

eren t k i dnappingthan the one l i sted in the indictment was obviated by the district judgewho charg ed the jury that evidenc e of a diffe rent kidnappingwas not the c ri me wi th whic h d e fend ant w a s c ha rg e d “but w ou ld at mo st constitut e ev i denceof similar overt a cts as alleg ed in Count One of theindic tme nt” ); Un ited S tates v . Clar

k, 732 F .2 d 153 6, 15 40 (1 1th Cir. 1984) (no construc tive amendment where defendants were charg ed with conspira cy

to distribute one ty

p e o f drug, but whe re a different drugwas introduce d at trial; the jury was clearly

apprised that they h ad t o find conspira cy

to distribute the ty

pe of dr ugin the indictment to convict). 14 H ow ever , t he pr obl em her e i s tha tt he j ur yi ns t ruct i ons15 i nfor m ed t he j ur yt hatt he D efe ndant s coul d be convi ct ed on the bas i s of conduc tt hatw as notchar ged i n t he ind ict m ent , of
w h ich t heyhad no no t i ce. T he tr i al cou rtgav e a specifi c in stru c tio n o n tax e v a sio n th a t id e n tifie d th e c o n d u c t th a t co u ld
s a t i s f y t h e a f f i r m a t i v e a c te l e m e n to f t h e c h a r g e d c o n s p i r a c y. A s w i l l be di s cus s ed i n gr eat erdet ai l bel ow , t he governm ent onl yhad t o pr ove one— not al l

— of t he over tact s char ged i n t he in d ic tm e n t. Un i t e d

S t a t e s v . A da mo , 5 3 4 F . 2 d 3 1 , 3 8 (3d C ir . 1976) . N evert hel es s , t he D efe ndant s can notbe conv ict ed on t he bas i s of an over t act t hati s i ncl uded i n j ur yi ns t ruct i ons , but
n o t c h a rg e d in th e in d ic tm e n t. Sym e, supra . T h e lan g u ag e w e h av e it ali cize d in the ab o v e-q u o ted ju ry i ns t ruct i on, t hough onl y i nt ended as exampl es of o ffendi ng conduct , pl ai nl yr efe r r ed t o par t i cul arevi dence i n t he ca s e and t her efor e al l ow ed the j u ry to convi ctt he D efe ndant s forBe causethe er ror a ffe ct ed the c harg ing te rms of the 7 indictment, it is a construc tive amendment, not a v ar i an ce. See U nit ed S t ates v. C ast ro , 7 7 6 F . 2 d 1 1 1 8 , 1 1 2 1 -22 & n . 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 5 ) (distinguishi ngconstructive a mendments from va

rianc es). “[A]m endments . . . occur when the charg ing terms of the indictment arealtere d . . . .” Id. at 1122. Variance s occur when the c harg ing te rm s ar e un c ha

ng e d, “but thee vid e nc e at tria l prov e s f a c ts m ate ri a lly differ en t from thos e alleg ed in the indictment.” Id. I f a va rianc e be tw e e n theindic tme nt a

nd thee vid e nc e “ do e s n ot alte r t hee le me nts of the offense charg ed, we will focus upon whether or not therehas been prejudice to the de fenda nt.” Id. ; s e e a l

s o U ni t ed Stat es v. S y me , 2 7 6 F . 3 d 1 3 1 , 1 5 4 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) (“The p re sumption of pre judic e [of c on str

uc tiv e ame ndme nts ] und e r p la in error analysis does not extend to the more fre quently enc o un tere d cate g ory

of va ri anc e s f ro m an in dic tme nt, wh ic h ma y bedis mis se d a s h arm le ss 16 unchar ged conduc t . A ccor di ngl y , t he court ’ s i ns t ructi ons im p ro p e rl y a m e n d e d th e in d ic tm e n t. See, e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. Thom as , 274 F. 3d 655, 670 ( 2d C i r . 2001) ( const ruct i ve am en d m en t occ u rs w h en the term s o f th e in d ic tm en t are effecti velym od i fi ed b yt he co urt ’s act i on s such t hat “there i s a s ubs t ant i al l i kel i hood t hatt he def endantm ay h ave been convi ct ed of a n offe ns e othert han thatchar ged i n t he in d ictm e n t”) . U n les s th e g o v e rn m e n t ca n sh o w w ith c e rta in ty

7even when prope rly objected to at trial.”).

17 t hatt he j ur ydi d notconvi ctD efe ndant s bas ed on thos e i m pr oper exam ples , w e m ustfi nd plai n err o r a n d reverse D efen dan t s’ convi ct i ons on C ount1. W e re ali ze that th e c o u rtp rop erlyad m o n ishe d the ju ry th a t D e f e n d a n ts w e re n o t o n trial fo r an y c o n d u c t n o t alle g e d in the in d ict m en t. T h e g o v ern m en t r eli es u p o n th a t i n tr o d u ctory i ns t ruct i on and t he j ur ychar ge as a w hol e t o argu e that D efe ndant s w er e not pr ej udi ced by t he cons t ruct i ve amendm ent b ec au se, as j u st n o ted, w e p resu m e tha t j u rors f o ll o w the c o u rt ’s in s tr u c tio n s o n th e la w . S y m e , 276 F. 3d at 155. H ow ever , t hat l egal axi om cut s bot h w ay s here. T he governm ent ’ s ar gum ent i gnor es t he fa ctt hatt he cou rt then gave e xampl es of evi dence t hat w oul d es t abl i s h t he D efe ndant s ’ gui l t for the c h ar ged
cr i m es , and i ncl uded conduc t t he j ur y hear d t es t i m onyaboutt hat18 w a s n o t c h a rg e d in th e in d ictm e n t. If w e p re su m e , as w e m u st, t hatt he j ur yfol l ow ed the court ’ s i ns t ruct i ons , w e mustconcl ude t hatt her e i s a r eal pos s i bi l i t yt hatthe jur yr el i ed upon the
un charged exam ples of co nd uct t o co nv i ctt he D efen dan t s, j ust
a s th e c o u rt in s tr u c te d . Th e governm enti ns i s t s , r el y i ng on U ni t ed Stat es v . B o

ffa , 6 8 8 F .2 d 9 1 9 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 2 ), cer t . deni ed , 4 6 0 U . S . 1 0 2 2 (19 8 3 ), t hat w e can c on cl ud e “w i t h cert ai nty ” t hat t h e D efen dan t s’ convi ct i on fort ax eva s i on w as b ase d o nl yon t he af fi r m at i ve act s of pr epar i ng, s i gni ng, and caus i ng the fi l i ng of fa l s e fe der al empl oy m entt ax ret u rns , as al l eged i n t he s uper s edi ng i ndi ct m ent . I n B off

a , the cour thel d t her e w as no pr ej udi ce w her e a c ur at i ve i ns t ruct i on cl ar i fi ed tha tt he j ur ycoul d not convi ctt he defe ndant s of a R I C O cons pi r acy unl es s i tfound t hat th e c o n s p ir a c ye x i s t e d a f te r a c e rt a in d a te . Id
. T he cur at i veIn distinguishing be twee nthis case a nd Bo ffa , we do not 8 intend to sug g est any

thing a bout whether

such a curative instruc tion would have ne g ated the presumption of prejudice . 19 i ns t ruct i on s peci fi cal l ypi n- poi n t e d th e t i me p e r i od dur i ng w hi ch the conspi r acyhad t o have be en es t abl i s hed. H er e, how ever , t her e w as no anal ogous i ns t ruct i on. T he courtdi d not tel l t he j ur yt o r el y onl yupon evi dence of t he s peci fi c overtact s char ged in th e in d ictm e n t. 8 I n S y m e , w e r ecogni zed the diff i cul t yof a de fenda nt pr ovi ng actual pr ej udi ce i n t hi s s i tuat i on. 276 F. 3d at 154. T hat di ffi cul t y caus ed us t o r ej ect the gover nm ent ’ s ar gum entt hatt he pat t ern of convi ct i ons demonst r at ed thatt he j ur yhad notr el i ed
o n t h e c o u rt ’s e rr o n e o u s in s tr u c tio n s . Id
. a t 1 5 5 . As we ha ve e x p lain e d , it is ne a rly im p o ss ib le f o r a d e f e n d a n t to d e m o n stra te that h is/h er c o n v ict ion w as b ase d o n p arti cu lar ev ide n c e o r a p a rt ic u la r t h e o ry. Id . Si m i l ar l y , t her e i s no w ay t o det er m i ne20 w hethert he j ur y convi ct ed any oral l of t he D efe ndant s her e on th e s e c o n d a n d th ir d e x a m p le s in t h e in s tr u c tio n . S e e id . A ccor di ngl y , t he pr es um pt i on of pr ej udi ce a r i s i ng fr om t he
c o n s tr u c tiv e a m e n d m e n t h a s n o t b e e n re b u tte d . S e e id . at155. L eavi ng thi s err or uncorr ect ed w oul d s er i ous l y affec t t he f a ir n e s s a n d in te g ri ty o f th e p ro c e e d in g . Id . at155- 56 ( ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. O l ano , 50 7 U .S . 7 2 5 , 73 6 (199 3)) . W e m ust t her efor e vac at e D efe ndant s ’ convi cti o n s on C ount s 2 t hr ough 13 of t he s uper s edi ng i ndi ct m entand r ema n d forfur t her proceed i ng s on those cou nts . B . Suff

i ci ency of t he E vi dence A l t ho ug h w e are vacat i ng t he co nv i ct i on s on C o u n ts 2 th ro u g h 1 3 , an d re m a n d in g to th e d istric t co u rt, th e D e f e n d a n ts can onl ybe r etr i ed on thos e count s i f t he G overnm ent i ntr od uced suffici ent evidence t o s ust ai n tho se co n vict i on s;21 o th e rw ise , w e m u st dire c t a ju d g m e n t o f a c q u itt a l o n re m a n d in
o r d e rt o a v o i d a v i o l a t i o n o f t h e D o u b l e J e o p a r d yc l a u s e . We
m u st th e re f

o re d e ter m in e if

th e e v id e n c e w a s s u f f icie n t to con victanyof the D efen dan t s on an yo f t ho se coun t s. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l fi r s taddr es s w hethert he ev idence w as s uffi ci entt o s us t ai n t he convi ct i ons on C ount s 2 t hr ough 13, and t hen addr es s t he D efe ndant s ’ r emai ni ng chal l enges t o t he
s u f f ic ie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e . W e r evi ew t he evi dence i n t he l i ght m os t favor abl e t o t he go vernm ent. W e do no trew ei gh t he evidence o r as sess w i t ness c re d ib ility. See U

nit ed S t ates v. P epp ers , 302 F. 3d 120, 126 ( 3d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). V iew e d in th a t lig h t, w e m u st s u sta in th e v e rd ict “ if
a ra tio n a l trier o f

f a c t co u ld h a v e f

o u n d [ th e ] d e f

e n d a n t g u ilty bey ond a r eas o n ab le doubt , and the ver di cti s s uppor t ed by
s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e .” U n ite dS ta tes v . C o

y le , 63 F. 3d 1239,22 1 2 4 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). If th ere is su b stan ti al ev iden ce to su p p o rt t he j ur y ’ s det er m i nat i on, w e w i l l “ notdi s turb t he ver di ct
a l t h o u g h o n t h a t e v i d e n c e we mi g h t n o t h a v e ma d e t he s a me deci s i on. ” C ooper , 121 F. 3d at 1 3 3 (ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. H annigan , 2 7 F . 3 d 8 9 0 , 8 9 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 4 )). T h u s, o u r i n q u iry is lim ited to d e ter m in in g w h e th e r th e ju ry ’ s v e rd ict is p e rm is s ib le . S e e U

n itedS ta tes v . M

c G ill , 964 F. 2d 222, 229 ( 3d C i r. 1 9 92 ). W e beg i n thati nq uiryw i t h the D efen dan t s’ convi ct i ons forpayr ol l t ax eva s i on. 1. P a y r o ll T a x E v a s io n . T ax eva s i on r equi r es t he governm entt o pr ove bey ond a
r eas onabl e doubt : ( 1) an att empt t o evade or defe at a t ax; ( 2) an a d d itio n a l ta x d u e a n d o w in g ; a n d (3 ) w illf u ln e s s . See Sans one v. Un it ed St at es , 3 8 0 U .S . 3 4 3 , 3 5 1 (1 9 6 5 ); s ee 2 6 U .S .C .A . § 7201. T he “a ffi r m at i ve ac t ” of e vas i on can be “anyconduct , t he23 l i kel yeff ectof w hi ch w oul d be t o m i s l ead ort o conce al . ” Spi es v . Uni t e d S t a t es , 3 1 7 U . S. 492, 499 ( 1943) . H er e, w e bel i eve th a t ea c h e lem e n t is e sta b lish e d b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t as to al l D efen dan t s for each o f th e peri od s charged in C ou nts 2 t hr ough 13.
a. A f

f i rm at i ve A ct of

E vas i on D e f e n d a n ts d isp u te th e su f f icie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e to convi ctt hem of t ax eva s i on fo r t he l as tt hr ee qua r t er s of 2000 beca us e the authent i ci t yof t he s i gnatur es on t he corr es pondi ng 9 4 1 fo rm s w as n o t estab li sh ed . D ef en d an ts claim that the ju ry coul d notr el yon 26 U . S. C . § 6064, w hi ch pr ovi des t hat t he fa ct o f a sig n a tu re o n th e tax re tu rn is p rim a fa c ie evi dence t hatt he
re tu rn w a s s ig n e d b yth e n a m e d in d iv id u a l. T h e g o v e rn m e n t alle g e d th a t f a lse P a rtn e rsh ip empl oy m entt ax r etur ns fort he quart er s endi ng i n M ar ch 199824 t hr ough J anuary2001 qual i fi ed as aff i r m at i ve ac t s of eva s i on for C o u n ts 2 th ro u g h 1 3 . Sans one v. U ni t ed Stat es , 380 U . S. 343, 35 2 (196 5) ( cri m e of tax evasi on i s com plet e as soon as t he fa l se un derst at em ent of t axes i s fi l e d ); s ee al s o U ni t ed Stat es v. Schaf er , 5 8 0 F .2 d 7 7 4 (5 th C ir . 1 9 7 8 ), c e r t . d e n i ed , 43 9 U. S. 9 7 0 ; Sw al l ow v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 3 0 7 F . 2 d 8 1 , 8 3 (10 th C ir . 1 9 6 2 ),
cer t . deni ed , 3 7 1 U .S . 9 5 0 (1 9 6 3 ). T he D efe ndant s ar e cor r ect i n not i ng t hat t he s i gnatur es on t he 941 for m s w er e never authent i cat ed. H ow ever , t he fa ct t hata r etur n m ayhave be en s i gned bys om eone othert han one
o f th e D ef

en d an ts do es n o t nec essa ri lyu n d erm ine th e jury ’s concl us i on t hatD efe ndants knew t he r etur ns w er e fa l s e and app roved the fi l i ng s t o ev ade ap pli cable em ploym e n tt axes.

“ T h e law d o e s n o t re q u ire th e d e f e n d a n t’s o w n sig n a tu re to s us t ai n a convi ct i on under§ 7201: i t m er el yr equi r es s uffi ci ent25 ci r cumst ance s . . . fr om w hi ch a r eas onabl e j ur ycoul d fi nd that t h e d e f e n d a n td i d a u t h o r i z e t h e f i l i n g o f t h e r e tu r n wi t h h i s n a me s u b s c ri b e d to it.” U

ni t ed S tate s v. Faw az , 881 F. 2d 259, 265 ( 6t h C i r . 1989) . T he j ury coul d ther efor e r eas onabl yhave concl uded thatei t herJ os eph orI nge D onat o s i gned the 941 F orm s a ndtha teach D efen dan tauthori zed the fraudu l ent fi l i ng s. Ing e D o n ato w as M cK ee -D o n ato’s b o o k k ee p er a n d there
w as no evi dence t o s ugges tt hatherdut i es change d dur i ng 2 0 0 0

— the d ispu te d tim e p eriod . T h e juryco u ld the ref o re concl ude thatD efe ndant s cont i nued t o exec ut e the p ay r ol l for t he Par t ner s hi p i n t he s ame m annert heyhad dur i ng t he pr evi ous e lev e n y e a rs: In g e g e n e ra ted a n d m a n a g e d th e c o m p a n yp a yro ll
r ecor ds upon w hi ch the fa lse t ax r etur ns w er e bas ed, and ea ch pay dayJ os eph D onat o and/ orK evin M cK ee ha nded out “unt axed” pay chec ks t o t hei rR I Y - m ember / empl oy ees and “t axed” pay chec ks t o t hei r o therempl oy ees . G i ven our26 obl i gat i on t o dr aw al l r eas onabl e i nfer ences in favorof t he
v e rd ic t w in n e r, J

a c k so n v . V irg in ia , 4 4 3 U. S . 3 0 7 ( 1 9 7 9 ) , we can notconcl ude thatt he evi dence on C ount s 2 t hr ough 13 w as in su f f icie n t. M or eover , t he overtact s of J os eph and I nge on beha l f of t he Par t ner s hi p m aybe i m put ed t o K evi n M cK ee f ort he per i od 1997 t hr ough 2000. D ur i ng t hat per i od, M cK ee s h are d t he obl i gat i on of fi l i ng empl oy m entt axes on behal f of the P a rtn e rsh ip . A n e m p lo y e r h a s a d u tyto d e d u c t f ro m its empl oy ees ’ gr os s w ages , s chedul ed a m o u n t s fort hei rs oci al
s ecur i t ycont r i but i ons , and t o payi ncome tax, 26 U . S. C . A . §§ 3102( a) , 3402( a) ; and t o hol d t hem i n t rus tfort he U ni t ed St at es u n til r e m itte d . I

d. § 7501( a) . T he t ax l aw s pr ovi de for cr i m i nal liab ili tyf o r an y p e rso n w h o “ w ill f u llya ttem p ts in a n ym a n n e r to evade or d ef

eatanyt ax i m pos ed byt hi s t i t l e ort he paym ent27 t he r e of . . . . ” 26 U . S. C. A . § 7 20 1. Se c t i on 73 43 of t he U . S. C ode expl ai ns t hatt he t er m “per s on, ” as us ed i n t he cha pt erof t he I nt er nal R evenue C ode concerni ng cr i m i nal l i abi l i t yfort ax evas i on, “i ncl udes . . . a mem berorempl oy ee of a part ner s hi p, w h o a s s u c h o f

f ice r, em p lo y e e , o r m e m b e r is u n d e r a d u tyto p erf o r m t he ac ti n r es pectof w hi ch the vi ol at i on occur s . ” 26 U . S. C . § 7343. D efe ndant s al l s at i s fy t he code’ s defi ni t i on of a “per s on” forpurpos es of cr i m i nal t ax l i abi l i t y . I nge and J os eph
w ere activ e lyi nv olved i n the process of fi l i ng t he tax r eturns. A s par t ner s , K evi n M cK ee and Jos eph D onat o eac h had a l egal dut yt o fi l e ac cur at e t ax returns on be hal f of the Par t ner s hi p. A ccor di ngl y , t he fr audul entfi l i ngs s at i s fi ed the overt act of t ax e v a s io n f o r a ll th re e D e f

e n d a n ts . D e f e n d a n ts a lso a rg u e th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t f a ile d to es t abl i s h t hatt heyi nt ended t o conce al orm i s l ead. T heycont end28 th a t w ith o u t th a t men s r ea , t h e g o v e rn m e n t’ s p ro o f f a ils . See D o n ato’s B r. at 2 9 . D ef en d an ts a re co rrect th at t h e m ere fa il u re t o f i l e a t ax r etur n cannot , byi t s el f, s uppor ta fi ndi ng t hathe/ s he aff i r m at i vel y at t empt ed t o evade t he paym ent of t axes . A per s on cannot be convi ct ed of t ax evas i on bas ed mer el yon an omi s s i on;

“ th e p e rs o n m u s t a ls o u n d e rt a k e a n a f f ir m a tiv e a c t o f

e v a s io n .” U ni t ed Stat es v. R om ano , 9 3 8 F . 2 d 1 5 6 9 , 1 5 7 3 (2d C ir . 1 9 9 1 );
se e a lso Mc G ill , 9 6 4 F. 2d at231 ( m er e fa i l ur e t o pay as s es s ed tax e s, w ith o u t m o re , d o e s n o t c o n stitu te e v a sio n o f p a ym e n t, t hough i tm ays at i s fyr equi r ement s forw i l l ful fai l ur e t o pay ta x e s ). H e re , h o w e v e r, w e h a v e m o re th a n a m e re “ o m is s io n .” D efe ndant s fi l ed t ax r etur ns t hat fal s el y s t at ed t he t ot al amount o f e m p lo y e e w a g e s o w e d to th e U n ite d S tate s b yd e lib e ra tely
o m itt in g R IY -m e m b e r/em ploy ee w ages. T h e irAs wehaverepe ate dly state d, circ ums ta

nti a l e vid e nc e is 9 routinely offe red to satisfy the intent e lement in c riminal case s. See generally U

nited States v. Iafelice , 9 7 8 F . 2 d 9 2 , 9 8 ( 3 d C i r . 1 9 9 2 ) ( “ It

29 m i s r epr esent at i on of t he t ot al w ages s ubj ectt o empl oy m ent t axes w as a w i l l ful actof conc eal m ent . T hus, they d i d not
m e re lyf a il t o f ile, o r fa il t o p a y , li k e th e d e f e n d a n ts in R om ano and Mc G ill r es pect i vel y . R ather , t hey fi l ed r etur ns t hatm i s l ed byaff i r m at i ve mi s s t at ement , t hus conce al i ng crucial t ax inf o rm a tio n . S e e Mc G ill , 9 6 4 F .2 d a t 2 3 1 (“ [ A ]f f irm a tiv e ly
ev asiv e a cts-a cts i n tend ing to co n ce al-are p u n isha b le un d er § 7201. ”) . I n r ej ect i ng a cha l l enge to the s uffi ci encyof t he
e v id e n c e , w e h a v e in stru c ted th a t Spi es a n d i t s p r o g e n y:
s i m pl yr equi r e thatt her e b e so m e evi dence fr om w hi ch a ju ry c o u ld in f

e r in ten t to m isle a d o r c o n c e a l . . . . [I ]t is fort he j ur yt o det er m i ne, as a mat t erof fa ct , w hethert he aff i r m at i ve ac tw as under t aken, i n par t , t o conce al funds f ro m o r m is le a d th e g o v e rn m e n t. U ni t ed Stat es v. V

oigt , 8 9 F . 3 d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 9 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). 9is not unusual th at th e g overnme nt will not have direc t evidence . [Mens rea ] is o f

ten p r o v e n b y c irc ums ta

n c e s . ” ) . T h is r

u leapplies equally to taxevasion prose cu t i o ns. United States v. Voigt, 89 F.3d 1050, 1090 (

3d Cir. 1996). The SupremeCourt has stated that “a ny conduct, the likely

eff ect of which would be to mislea d or conc eal,” is sufficie nt to satisfy

the “a ffirmative act”element. Spies v. United States , 31 7 U .S. 49 2, 49 9 ( 19 43 ); ac c or d United States v. Conley , 826 F.2d 551, 556 ( 7th Cir. 1987) (rational jury can inf er intent to eva de upon lear ning of manner in which defendant conducted his financial aff airs). This require s that there be “someevidenc e from which a jury could infer

an intent to mislead or conce al beyond merefailureto pay a sse sse d taxes; it i s f

or thejur y to d e te rm ine , a s a

matte r o f f

a c t, whether the aff

irmative act was undertaken, in pa rt, to conce al funds from or mislead theg overnme nt.” Voigt , 89 F.3d at 1090. 30 D efe ndant s ’ m i s s t at ement s of t he t ot al empl oy ee w ages s ubj ect to f e d e ra l t axati on sat i sfythis require m e n t, no tw ith sta n d in g th e ir p u b lic a n d v o c a l o p p o s itio n to ta x e s . See Swal l ow v. U ni t ed St at es , 3 0 7 F .2 d 8 1 , 8 3 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 6 2 ) (“ A w ilfu l in ten t to evade or defe at t ax l i abi l i t y m ay be i nferr ed fr om t he conduc tof the tax p ay er.”) (fo o tno tes o m itted). D e f e n d a n ts a lso c la im th a t th e ir f a ilu re to f

ile a c c u ra te returns w as equa l l ycon si st ent w i t h innoce nt act i vity . D on at os’31 B r . at28 ( ci t i ng Uni t e d S t a t e s v . Ma t

s i n g er , 1 9 1 F . 2d 1014, 1 0 1 6 (3d C ir . 1 9 5 1 ) (“[A ] ca se m ayn o t be s u b m itted to a jury
w hen the ac t i ons of t he acc us ed ar e as cons i s t entw i t h i nnocenc e as w i t h g u i l t. . . . ”) ) . H ow ever , t he evi dence w e have al r eady di s c u s s e d was s u f

f i c i e n tt o a l l o w t h e j u r yt o c o n c l u d e t h a tt he f a ls e f ilin g w a s in te n tio n a l, s e e , e .g ., 26 U . S. C . A . § 3102( a) ( empl oy er ’ s dut yt o deductfr om i t s em p loy ees ’ gr os s w ages sc h e d u led a m o u n ts f

o r th e ir o b lig a tio n s to m a k e so c ial s e c u rity and othert ax contr i but i ons ) , even i f D efe ndant s ’ al s o had an

“ in n o c e n t” m o tiv e . See U ni t ed St at es v. Jungl es , 903 F. 2d 468, 473- 74 ( 7t h C i r . 1990) ( act i vi t yt hati s i t s el f l aw ful can co n sti tute an af

firm ati v e act to ev ad e); s ee al s o U ni t ed Stat es v. P ol l en , 9 7 8 F .2 d 7 8 , 8 6 ( 3 d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) (tra n sp o rtin g f u n d s to for ei gn count r i es , t her ebym aki ng i tm or e di ffi cul tt o t r ace , p ro v id e s in f

e re n c e o f

in te n t to e v a d e ), cer t . deni ed , 50 8 U. S. 9 0 6 (1 9 9 3 ).32 T h e re f o r e , ev e n if

D e f e n d a n ts’ f

a ilu re to a c c u ra tely
r eport the t ot al w ages s ubj ectt o empl oy m entt axes w as m ot i vat ed byt hei rdes i r e t o r es pectt hei rempl oy ees ’ r el i gi ous c o n v ictio n s, th a t “in n o c e n t” m o tiv e d o e s n o t ex em pt D efen dan ts f ro m th e ir o b lig a tio n to d e d u c t f e d e ra l tax e s a n d a c c u ra tely
r epo rtt he w ages s ubj ectt o t hatt ax, par t i cul ar l ys i nce the
corner s t one of the t ax s y s t em i s vol u n tarys el f- r epor t i ng. Thom as v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 41 F. 3d 1109, 1113 ( 7th Ci r . 1994) ( T he t ax code “r equi r es empl oy er s t o w i t hhol d fede ral S o ci al Secur i t yand i ncome t axes from t he w ages of t hei rempl oy ees a n d t o h o l d t h o s e t a x e s i n t ru s tf o rt h e g o v e r n me n t . 2 6 U. S . C. §§ 3102 , 3402. E m pl oy er s m us t r epor tand payt he t axes t hey
w ith h o ld q u a rte rly .”). G iv e n th e e v id e n c e h e re , fa ilu re to c o m p lyw ith th e se re q u ire m e n ts b y c o n c e a lin g w a g e s s u b jec t to
w ith h o ld in g is s u f

f icie n t to su p p o rt a f

in d in g th a t D e f

e n d a n ts i nt ended t o evade t he Par t ner s hi p’ s empl oy m entt ax obl i gat i on.33 b. Tax D ue and O w i ng T he exi s t ence of a t ax def i ci encyi s an es s ent i al el ement of t he cr i m e of t ax eva s i on. H ow ever , t he governm entneed not al l ege or p rov e the pr eci s e amount of addi t i onal t ax due a nd
o w in g . See U

ni t ed St at es v. C i t r on , 783 F. 2d 307, 314- 15 ( 2d C i r . 1986) . T he evi dence need onl yes t abl i s h a s ubs t ant i al t ax d e f i c i e n c y. See U

ni t ed St at es v. Johns on , 319 U . S. 503, 517- 18 (1 9 4 3 ); U

ni t ed S tates v. B ur di ck , 2 2 1 F . 2 d 9 3 2 , 9 3 4 (3d C ir . 1955) . T he governm entes t abl ishe d t hi s el ement w i t h t he uncont es t ed t es t i m ony of an I R S agentr egar di ng t he def i ci ency char ged i n C ount s 2 t hr ough 13.
c. W i l l ful n ess A s w e hav e al ready exp l ai ned , t he el em ent of w i l l fulness pr ot ect s t he ave r age c i t i zen f r om crimi nal pr os ecut i on for inn o centm i s t akes i n fi l i ng t ax form s t hatm ayr es ul tfr om34 no t hing m ore than n egli gen ce or t he co m plexi tyof the t ax law s. W i l l ful nes s r equi r es t he vol untary , i nt ent i onal vi ol at i on of a k n o w n l e g a l d u t y a s a c o n d i t i o n p r e c e d e n t t o c r i m i n a l l i a b i l i t y. C heek v. U ni t ed Stat es , 4 9 8 U . S . 1 9 2 (19 9 1 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted);
se e a lso U

n itedS ta tes v . P o m

p o n io , 4 2 9 U . S . 1 0 , 1 2 (19 7 6 ). D efe n dant s ar gue t hatt hei roppos i t i on t o paym entof fe der al t axes w as openl y expr es s ed, D onat os ’ B r . at27, and, t her efor e, t he governm entfai l ed t o pr ove i nt entorw i l ful nes s . T hey ch ara cterize the p roo f at tr ial as “c o n sist en t w ith [d ef en d an ts’ ] havi ng onl yi nt ended t o r es pectt he r el i gi ous conv ic t i ons and
w i s hes of [RIY ] empl oy ees . ” I d. a t 2 9 . W e r ej ectt hat arg u m entbas ed upon the t ot al i t yof t he
e v id e n c e w e h a v e a lr e a d yd is c u s s e d . See U ni t ed Stat es v. H a b ig , 390 U . S. 222, 222- 23 ( 1968) ( ci t i ng Sw al l ow , 307 F. 2d at 83 (“Th e off

ense i s com plet e w hen t he taxpay er fi l es a fal se35 and fr audul entr etur n w i t h i nt entt o evade or defe atanypar tof t he t ax due. A w i l ful i nt ent t o evade ordefe att ax l i abi l i t ym ay be i n f e r r e d f r o m t h e c o n d u c to f

t h e t a x p a y e r . ” ) ( f

o o t n o t es o m itte d )) . T h e D e f e n d a n ts w e re s e le c tiv e in n o t r e p o rt in g w a g e s . T he jur ycou l d cert ai nlycon cl ud e t hat this w as not m e re ly negl i gence oran unfor tunat e coi nci dence , butcoul d on lyhave b e e n w ill f

u l a n d d e lib e ra te. T h a t c o n d u c t w a s in h e re n tlylik e ly t o m i s l ead orconce al . See Spi es , 317 U . S. at499 ( aff ir m at i ve w i l l ful at t empt m aybe i nferr ed fr om conduct s uch as keepi ng a do ub l e setof bo ok s, m aking fals e entr i es of alt erat i on s, or fal se i nv oices or docu m ents , de structi on of b oo ks or r ecords,
conce alm en tof as s et s orcover i ng up s our ces of i ncome, h a n d lin g o f

o n e ’s a f f a irs to a v o id m a k in g th e re c o rd s u su a l in t r ans act i ons of t he ki nd, and anyconduct , t he l i kel yeff ectof36 w hi ch w oul d be t o m i s l ead o r to conce al ) . “[W ] e have oft en hel d t hat r epet i t i ous conduct r es ul t i ng i n underpaym entof t axes ma y b e s u f

f i c i e n t t o s h o w wi l l f

u l n e s s . ” A s h

fi e ld , 735 F. 2d at 105 ( cons i s t entfai l ur e t o i ncl ude al l i ncome o n the books and
re c o rd s o f

a d e f e n d a n t’s b u sin e ss ); s ee al s o U ni t ed St at es v. A lker , 260 F. 2d 135, 148 ( 3d C i r . 1958) (“co ns i s t ent
u n d ersta tem en t [o f tax li ab il ity ] i s ev iden ce o f w il lfu lnes s”); U ni t ed Stat es v. Fr ank , 245 F. 2d 284, 287- 88 ( 3 d C ir . 1 957) (p ro o f o f a c o n sis ten t p a ttern o f u n d e rre p o rtin g “ is itse lf
e n o u g h ” to s u s ta in a ju ry f in d in g o f w illf u l ta x e v a s io n ). See al s o U ni t ed St at es v. G r eenl ee , 517 F. 2d 899, 903 ( 3d C i r . 1975) ( “a tw o y earpatt ern o f der el i ct i ons . . . [i s ] i t s el f i ndi cat i ve of t he w i l l ful nes s ”) . T hat i s pr eci s el y w hat t he g o vernm ent es t abl i s hed her e. M o reo v er, sinc e D ef

en d an ts w ere aw are o f L eo V o lpe’s37 cr i m i nal convi ct i on, t hey k n ew t hatt hei rr el i gi ous l ybas ed oppos i t i on t o t axes di d not excus e compl i ance w i t h t he r evenue l aw s ori m m uni ze t hem from t he cons equenc es of t hei rw i l l ful conduct . T he D ef

en d an ts argu e tha t th e g o v ern m en t’ s co n si s t ent f a ilu re to p ro se c u te th e m e v e n th o u g h th e yw e re o u tsp o k e n in th e ir o p p o sit io n to p a y in g tax e s, c a u se d th e D e f e n d a n ts to bel i eve thatt he I R S had excus ed them from pay i ng fede r al t axes . T he j ur y o b v iou sl yr ej ect ed thi s i nt erpr et at i on of t he evi dence , and s o do w e. O n t he contr ary , w i l l ful ness m aybe pr oven t hr ough t he evi dence of D efe ndant s ’ t ax pro tes t or a c tiv itie s . See U

ni t ed S tates v. H

ogan , 86 1 F . 2d 31 2, 31 6 (1st C ir. 1 9 8 8 ) (ju ryw a s p ro p e rlya llo w e d to c o n sid e r a n im o sity tow ard the IR S as a n ind icati o n o f d ef en d an t’ s w il lfu ln e s s); U ni t ed Stat es v. G r os s hans , 821 F. 2d 1247, 1252 ( 6t h C i r . 1987) ( defe ndant ’ s at t endanc e att ax pr ot es t oror gani zat i onal m eet i ngs a d m issi b le t o sh o w w il lfu lnes s); U ni t ed Stat es v. Turano , 8 0238 F. 2d 10, 1 1 - 12 ( 1s tC i r . 1986) ( defe ndant ’ s s t at ement s and act i ons att ax pr ot es t orm eet i n g s u sef ul t o es t abl i s h s t at e of
m ind ); U ni t ed Stat es v. R eed , 670 F. 2d 622, 623 ( 5t h C i r . 1982) ( defe ndant ’ s phi l os ophy , m ot i vat i on, and ac t i vi t i es as t ax p ro te s to r a d m is s ib le to s h o w in te n t) . D efe ndant s m ai nt a i n th a tVol p e’ s convi ct i on forcr i m i nal t ax eva s i on w as i nadmi s s i bl e bec au se h e w as convi ct ed for fai l ur e t o pay taxe s, w h il e D ef en d an ts w ere ch arg ed w ith fa il u re t o f i l e t axes . D efe ndant s t hus cl ai m t hatt he evi dence w as i r r el evantand pr ej udi ci al and s houl d have been excl uded. T he di s t i nct i on D efe ndant s m ake, t hough t echni cal l y corr ect , i s not suffici ent t o al t er ou r analy si s of t he evi den ce her e b ecause V o lp e ’s c o n v ictio n p u t D e f e n d a n ts o n n o tice th a t f a ilu re to c o m p lyw ith tax law s c a n h a v e c rim in a l co n se q u e n c e s e v e n if
m ot i vat ed byr el i gi on.39 M cK ee a r gues t hatt he governm entdi d not es t abl i s h t hat he knew t hatt h e P ar t ner s hi p w as s el ect i vel yw i t hhol di ng empl oy ee pa yr ol l t axes ort hathe agr eed t o i ts i nce he di d not
s i gn t he fr audul entt ax form s and w as noti nvol ved w i t h t he f in a n c ia l a s p e c ts o f

th e P a rt n e rs h ip . See Benata r v. U ni t ed S t at es , 2 09 F. 2d 734 ( 9t h C i r . 1954) ( fi ndi ng t hatdefe ndant p re sid e n t’s s ig n a tu re o n tax f o rm s w a s s u f

f icie n t ev id e n c e to s uppor tconvi ct i on forcon sp ir acyw i t h corpor at i on t o defr aud G o v ern m en t byo b stru cti n g p rop er f u n cti o n s o f IR S ); U

ni t ed S tat es v. Sun M

yung Moon , 718 F. 2d 1210 ( 2d C i r . 1983) (up hol di ng convi ct i on of cons pi r acyt o fi l e fa l s e t ax r etur ns and/ o ro b s t ru c tj u s t i c e b a s e d o n e v i d e n c e t h a te x e c u t i ve d ef en d an t cl o selyscru ti n ized h is pe rson al af fa ir s an d w as a w are o f in f o rm a tio n c o n tain e d in h is ta x re tu rn s); U ni t ed Stat es v. C ypr i an , 23 F. 3d 1189, 1202 ( 7t h C i r . 1994) (find i ng t hat evi dence s uppor t ed convi ct i on forcons pi r acyt o defr aud40 go v e rn me n twhe r e def

endantper s onal l ypai d empl oy ees i n cas h, and w as r es pons i bl e forfi l i ng t ax form s on behal f of e m pl oy ees a n d p ro v id in g th e m w ith W -2 f o rm s ). M cK ee i s corr ectthatunl i ke the pr oof i n B enatar , Sun M yung Moon and C

ypr i an , t he governm entdi d notpr es ent e v id e n c e th a t h e sig n e d tax f o rm s, c lo se ly sc ru tin ize d th e p a yro ll
r ecor ds t hat I nge m ai nt ai ned, r egul ar l y pai d empl oy ees , orw as r es pons i bl e forfi l i ng t ax form s on behal f of empl oy ees or pr ovi di ng t hem w i t h W - 2 for m s . H ow ever , as w e have al r eady
s t r es s ed, “r ank and f

i l e” e m pl oy ees w ere aw ar e of w hatw as happeni ng w i t h w i t hhol di ng o n w ages of R I Y m ember s and
non- m ember s . I tw as t her efor e r eas onabl e for t he j ur y t o i nfer t hatM cK ee, a named par t neri nvol ved w i t h t he oper at i on of t he bus i nes s , al s o knew . T he evi dence es t abl i s hed thatem p l oy ees wh o wo r k e d f

o rt h e c o mp a n yk n e w g e n e r a l l yt h a t“ a n y[ RI Y]41 m ember w ho w or ked fo r M cK ee- D onat o di d notpayfede r al i nco m e t ax . . . t hat w as a hel p to both part i es t o n ot - - i tw as a r el at i ons hi p t o get out of pay i ng t hos e t axes . ” A pp. at658- 59; see al so A pp. at296- 97 ( non- R I Y - m ember / empl oy ee t es t i fy i ng th a t R IY m e m b e r/e m p lo y e e s w e re p a id b y a d if f e r e n t p a yro ll companyand w er e not s ubj ectt o w i t hhol di ng) . M or eover , t he
cas es M cK ee r el i es upon di d noti nvol ve i ndi vi dual s w i t h a l ong h isto ryo f

p ro tes tin g tax e s a n d in s tr u c tin g o th e rs o n h o w to
a v o id a u d it tr a ils to m in im iz e c h a n c e s o f d e te c tio n . O n t hi s r ecor d, t he j ur ycoul d concl ude t hat M cK ee ha d t o h a v e k n o wn t h a tt h e f e d e r a l p a yr o l l f

o r ms o mi t t e d RI Ym ember/ empl oy ees ’ i nfor m at i on; y et , he t ook no s t eps t o corr ect t he s i tuat i on orr epor tt he unr epor t ed w ages . T hati s s uffi ci ent to e s ta b lis h w illf

u ln e s s . 2. C onspi racy T o D efr a u d th e G o v er n m en t (C o u n t 1).The conspiracy that was c harg ed in Count 1 is known as “a 10 Kle in conspirac y ,” re fer

ringto Un ited S

tates v . Kle in , 247 F.2d 908 (2d Cir. 1957), cert. de nied, 355 U.S. 924 (1958). 42 I n or der t o pr ove a c ons pi r acyt o defr aud the U ni t ed St at es i n v i o l a t i o n o f

1 8 U. S. C. 3 7 1 ( Cou n t1 ) , t h e e v i d e n ce m u st e sta b lish th e f

o llo w in g e lem e n ts b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le doubt : ( 1) an agr eementt o defr aud the U ni t ed St at es , ( 2) t he defe ndant ’ s know ing and vol unt arypar t i ci pat i on i n t he
c o n sp i racy , and (3) each c on spi rat or’ s com m i ssi on of at l east o n e o v e rt a c t in f

u rt h e ra n c e o f

th e c o n s p ir a c y . See U

ni t ed Stat es v . R a n k in , 8 7 0 F .2 d 1 0 9 , 1 1 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 9 ). “ T o c o n sp ire to 10 defr aud the U ni t ed St at es m eans pr i m ar i l yt o chea tt he g o v e rn m e n t o u t o f

p ro p e rtyo r m o n e y , b u t als o m e a n s to in ter f e re w ith o r o b stru c t th e g o v e rn m e n t b yd e c e it, c ra f t, tr ic k e ry, o r a t le a s t b ym e a n s th a t a re d is h o n e s t.” H am m ers chm i dtv. U

ni t ed Stat es , 2 6 5 U . S . 1 8 2 , 1 8 8 (19 2 4 ).43 W e add res s t he suf

fi ci encyof the proof o f e ach o f t hese
e le m e n ts in tu rn . a. A gr e e m e nt D efe ndant s m ake much of t he fa ctt hatt he governm ent f a iled to in tro d u c e a n y d ire c t ev id e n c e o f a n a g re e m e n t; h o w e v e r, d ir e c t e v i d e n c e is n o t r e q u ir e d . R a th e r, a cons pi r at or i al agr eementcan be pr oven ci r cumst ant i al l ybas ed
u p o n re a so n a b le in f

e re n c e s d ra w n f

ro m a c tio n s a n d sta tem e n ts o f t h e c o n s p i r a t o r s o r f

r o m th e c i r c u ms t a n c e s s u r r o u n d i n g t he
s c h e m e . See, e. g. , U

n ited S ta tes v . Sm ith , 294 F. 3d 473, 478 ( 3d C i r. 20 02 ) (A reas on able j uror cou l d cer t ai nly con cl ud e t hat a t aci t ag ree m entexi s t s amongsta gr oup of peopl e w hen they
e n g a g e in “ so m a n yu n u su a l ac ts.” ); s ee al s o U ni t ed Stat es v. B arr , 963 F. 2d 641, 650 ( 3d C i r . 1992) ( “I ti s w el l s et t l ed that
a w ritten o r sp o k e n a g re e m e n t a m o n g a lleg e d c o -c o n sp ira to rs is44 u n n e c e ss a ry ; ra th e r, in d ire c t ev id e n c e o f [ a ] m e re tac it under s t andi ng w i l l s uffi ce. ”) . T hus , a cons pi r at or i al agr eement d o e s n o t h a v e to b e e x p lic it. See U ni ted St at es v. P er ez , 280 F. 3d 318, 353 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( I n det erm ini ng t he s cope of t he
c rim in a l ac tiv ity th a t th e p a rticu lar d e f e n d a n t ag re e d to jo in tly under t ake . . . t he courtm aycons i deranyexpl i ci tagr eementor i m pl i ci tagr eementfai r l yi nferr ed fr o m t he conduc tof t he defe ndantand other s . ”) . I ndeed, co m m on s ens e s ugges t s , and
ex p erien ce co n firm s, that il lega l agre em en ts a re rarely , if ev er, re d u c e d to w riting o r v e rb a lize d w ith th e p re c isio n th a t is char act er i s t i c of a w r i t t en con tr a c t . R ather , t he i l l egal agr eement can be , and al m os tal w ay s i s , an i m pl i ci tagr eement among t he p a rt ie s to th e c o n s p ir a c y . See, e. g. , U ni t ed St ates v. Pri ce , 13 F .3 d 7 1 1 , 7 2 8 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 4 ) (m a n yo f th e u n d e rsta n d in g s in d rug d istri b u ti o n co n sp ir ac ies are im p li cit ).45 H er e, pr oof o f an a gr eementi ncl uded undi s put ed evi dence of R I Y ’ s ant i
- t ax t eac hi ngs , D efe ndant s ’ comm i t m ent t o t hos e t eac hi ngs , t hei rpos i t i ons w i t hi n R I Y , and t hei rs t eady
a s c e n t u p th e tie rs o f i n f lu e n c e w ith in th e o rg a n iz a tio n . H ow ever , D efe ndant s can notbe convi ct ed s ol el y b ec ause of th e ira s s o c ia tio n s . See B ar nes Found. v. Tow ns hi p of Low er Mer i on , 242 F. 3d 151, 163 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( ci t i ng N
. A
. A
. C
. P
. v. C l aiborne H

ardw are , 458 U . S. 886, 918- 19) ( 1982) ( addi t i onal ci t at i on om i t t ed) ) . Fi r s tA m endment pr ot ect i ons r equi r e thatt he g o v e rn m e n t p ro d u c e m o r e th a n e v id e n c e o f a ss o c iatio n to i m pos e l i abi l i t yforcons pi r acy . T he Supr eme C our thas i ns t ruct ed t hat , “[f

] orl i abi l i t yt o be im p o sed byr eas on of
a ss o c iatio n a lo n e , itis n e c e ss a ry to e sta b lish th a t th e g ro u p itse lf p o ss e ss e d u n law f

u l g o a ls a n d th a t th e in d iv id u a l h e ld a sp e c if ic in te n t to f

u rt h e r t h o s e ille g a l a im s .” C l aiborne H ardw are , 458 U . S. at920. M o reove r , evi dence of i nt entm us tbe j udged46 “ac cor di ng t o t he s t r i ct es tl aw . ” Id
. a t 9 1 9 . W e b e liev e th a t t h e e v id e n c e h e re sa tisf ies th is “s tr i ct i ssim i j u ri s” d o ctri n e. T h e g o v ern m en t pr oduced e vi dence of R I Y ’ s advoca cy of non- t ax- paym ent as w el l as over tact s and
om i ssi on s on the partof the P artnershi p to effect uate tho se goal s . For exampl e, t he Par t ner s hi p fai l ed t o fi l e 941 payr ol l t ax report i ng form s for em ploy ees w ho w ere m em bers o f R IY so t hatt hey di d not have t o pay fede r al t axes ; y et , t hati nfor m at i on wa s p r o v i d e d f

o re mp l o y e e s who wer e n o tme mb e r s o f RI Y. A ccor di ngly , the t axes of t hos e nonmem ber s w er e w i t hhel d as
r equi r ed byl aw . T h e jury coul d i nferan agr eementt o run t he P artne rship in a m a n n er tha t w as c o n sist en t w ith R IY ’s tea c h in g s b a se d o n th e ro les K e v in M c K e e a n d Jo se p h D o n a to h a d in th e P a rt n e rs h ip . B o th m e n w e re p e rc e iv e d a s th e “ b o s s ,”
e x e rc isin g p o sitio n s o f

su p e rv iso rya u th o ritya t M c K e e -D o n a to47 C o n stru c tio n . A p p . 2 9 2 , 3 1 3 , 3 1 8 -1 9 . A lth o u g h Jo se p h D o n a to
w as us ual l y t he one w ho handed e m pl oy ees t hei rpay chec ks , t he evi dence es t abl i s hed thatbot h m en di d s o. M oreo v er, dependi ng on w ho w as pr i m aril yr es pons i bl e fora gi ven j ob, bot h M cK ee a nd D onat o exer ci s ed fi nal deci s i on- m aki ng p o w e rs. A p p . 3 1 9 . A lth o u g h K e v in M c K e e a n d Jo se p h D o n a to neverexec ut ed a w ri tt en par t ner s hi p agr eement , t he evi dence
es t ab l i s h e d th a tb o th r egul ar l yr ece i ved Par t ner s hi p di s t r i but i ons o v e r th e y e a rs, a n d it w a s u n d isp u ted th a t b o th h a d a n o w n e rsh ip i nt er es ti n t he Par t ner s hi p. A pp. 854. M cK ee cont ends t hat he had no know l edge of anyi l l egal agr ee m entand he c oul d t her efor e notbe convi ct ed of
cons pi r acy . A l t hough a def endant ’ s fai l ur e t o r epor t i ncome can b e an over tacti n fur t her ance of a K l ei n cons pi r acy , t he go vernm ent m ust“st i l l prove th e re w as an ag reem ent w ho se48 purpos e w as t o i m pede t he IRS ( t he conspi r acy ) , and t hateac h defe ndantknow i ngl ypar t i ci pat ed i n t hatcons pi r acy . ” U ni t ed St at es v. A dki ns on , 1 5 8 F . 3 d 1 1 4 7 , 1 1 5 4 ( 1 1 t h Ci r . 1 9 9 8 ) . Of
cour s e, as w e have j us texp l ai ned, w her e ther e i s no di r ect e v i d e n c e “ o f

a n a g r e e me n tb ya l l f

o re a c h t o e v a d e h i s i n c o me ta x e s ,” th e g o v e rn m e n t ca n re ly o n c ir c u m s ta n tia l ev id e n c e . Id . N evert hel es s , “[t ] he fa i l ur e t o di s cl os e i ncome i s , w i t houtm or e, g e n e ra lly in s u f

f i c i e n t . . . .” , id . , to su p p o rta c o n v ict ion fo r a K lein con spi racy . “T o b e suffici ent, t he ev i den ce m ust e sta b lish a n a g re e m e n t a m o n g th e c o n sp ira to rs w ith th e in ten t to obs t ructt he governm ent ’ s know l edge a nd col l ect ion of t he
r evenue due. ” Id . “W hen the governm entr el i es upon ci r cums tanti al evi dence t o es t abl i s h a t ax cons pi r acy , t he ci rcu m s t ance s m us tbe s uch as t o w arr anta j ur y ’ s fi ndi ng t hat t he al l eged c ons pi r at or s had s om e comm on des i gn w i t h uni t yof purpos e t o i m pede the I R S. ” Id .49 M cK ee a l s o ar gues that the r e w as i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o convi cthi m b ec aus e the evi dence di d notes t abl i s h t hathe
wa s i n v o l v e d wi t h b o o k k e e p i n g o rg e n e r a l ma n a g e me n t . He stre ss e s th a t th e e v id e n c e d e m o n stra ted th a t h is p a rtn e rsh ip ro le atM cK ee- D onat o di d notgener al l yi ncl ude bus i nes s deci s i ons or fi l i ng t he Par t ner s hi p’ s t ax r etur ns . For i ns t ance , t he
r epr es ent at i ve fort he fi r m t hatpr oces s ed w eekl ypayr ol l fort he P artne rship test ifi ed that h e d ea ltw ith Jo sep h D o n ato a n d ev ery 9 4 1 p a yro ll t a x re p o rtin g f o rm in e v id e n c e w a s p u rp o rte d ly
s i gned byei t herJ os eph orI nge D onat o, notM cK ee. L i kew i s e, n o e v i d e n c e wa s p r e s e n t e d t h a t M c Ke e s u b mi t t e d ( o re v e n s a w)
a n y p a yro ll tax f

o rm s. T h e a c c o u n tan t f o r M c K e e -D o n a to t es t i fi ed thatdur i ng t he el even y ea rs t hats he di d payr ol l t ax r etur ns for the fi r m , s he had ne veronce s poken t o M cK ee a nd t hats he al w ay s r ece i ved the company ’s l edgerfr om I nge D o n a to .50 N onethel es s , i nas m uch as w e m us ti nt erpr ett he evi dence in th e lig h t m o st f

a v o ra b le to th e g o v e rn m e n t an d d e ter m in e if t he evi dence , s o vi ew ed, coul d es t abl i s h gui lt b ey o nd a
re a s o n a b le d o u b t, U

ni t ed St at es v. G am bone , 314 F. 3d 163 ( 3d C ir . 2005) , w e bel i eve the governm ent ’ s pr oof of M cK ee’ s par t i ci pat i on i n t he conspi r acy and i t s fai l ur e t o fi l e 941s fort he P a rt n e rs h ip w a s s u f

f ic ie n t to e s ta b lis h h is a g re e m e n t. I tw as w i del yknow n t o M cK ee- D onat o em pl oy ees t hat th e p a y c h e c k s o f

R IY -m e m b e r/e m p l oy ees atM cK ee-D on a to d id nothave f

eder al w i t hhol di ng t aken out even though t hos e t axes w er e w i t hhel d fr om t he pay chec ks of empl oy ees w ho w er e not
m e m b e rs o f R IY . See A pp. 658- 59, 290, 296- 97. M or eover , for a per i od of t i m e, a s epar at e pa y roll companyw as us ed for
e m p lo y e e s w h o w e re n o t R IY m e m b e rs , s ee A p p . 2 9 6 , an d there
w as a not i cea bl e di ffe r en ce in t he che cks of m ember s andAc c ordin gto o newi tne ss, theno n- RIY e mpl oye e s’ 11 paychec ks had a w indow envelop e an d were paid through Ajex Enterprises, an outs ide bookkeeping company , whose name appe are d at the top of the check. App. 300, 430. The RIY-e mployees’ chec ks were different. Id. at 29 9- 30 0. Th ey werepaid b y Mc Ke e -D on ato bookkeepingand appe are d to come from the local bank. Id. 51 n o n m e m b e rs. A p p . 3 0 0 ( M ich a e l C h a m b e rs, a P a rtn e rsh ip empl o y ee t es t i fi ed: “The pay chec ks w er e di ffe r ent , t he
m ember s ’ pay chec ks w er e fr om t he l ocal bank, and all t he chec ks w e r ece i ved [ sic ] f rom t he w i ndow envel ope, m ai l i ng envel ope. ”) . O ne non- m ember / empl oy ee t es t i fi ed: “ [I ] tw as p re ttyn o tice a b le th a t o u r ch e c k s w e re d if f e re n t. T h e yc a m e in di ffe r entenvel opes eac h w eek. ” A pp. 296 ( C hamber s ) . T he 11 j ur ycoul d cert ai nl yconcl ude that M cK ee knew at l eas t as m uch
as hi s em p loy ees aboutt he di ffe r ence betw een the che cks of
m ember s and nonmem ber s . T hi s i s par t i cul ar l ytr ue s i nce M c K e e o c c a s io n a lly h a n d e d o u t th e p a y c h e c k s , s ee A pp. at327, t he companyw as verys m al l and had onl yt w o par t ner s , M cK eeThis statement was not admitted for its truth, but rather as 12 proo f t hat Ke vin Mc Ke e wa s o pe n a

bo ut h is s tate d b e lie fs . 52 a n d th e D o n a to s h a d a c lo se re latio n sh ip th ro u g h th e P a rtn e rsh ip
as w el l as t hr ough R I Y , and al l three openl ys ubs cr i bed t o t he ant i
- t ax pr i nci pl es of R I Y . A pp. 290 ( C hamber s t es t i fi ed: “They [J oe and K evi n] di dn’ tbel i eve i n federal i ncome t axes i s t he
s t at ement J oe mad e . . . . J oe i ndi cat ed thati tw as a w art ax, an d they d idn ’t b e li ev e in w ar.”). In a d d it ion , M cK ee ’s 12 per s onal bel i ef thatpay ing fede r al t axes w as w r ong w as expr esse d openl yt o Par t ner s hi p empl oy ees . A pp. 320- 21 ( M i chae l G rus zk o s k i , a Par t ner s hi p empl oy ee t es t i fi ed: “J oe and K e v in b o th m e n tio n e d th e yd o n ’t th in k p a y in g f e d e ra l tax e s is ri g h t, th a t th e m ilita ry sp e n d in g o n it w a s w ro n g .” ). T he j ur ycoul d concl ude, bas ed on the for egoi ng evi dence , that M cK ee i nt ended thatt he bus i nes s i n w hi ch he
w a s a p a rtn e r b e ru n in a m a n n e r th a t w a s c o n sis ten t w ith h is53 perso n al bel i efs aboutt he evi l s of pay i ng t axes , and thathe ent er ed an a gr eementt o t hateff ec t. A pp. at321. A ddi t i onal
ev iden ce pr offe r ed b ythe g o v ern m en t fu rt h er su p p o rt s the jury ’s
c o n c lu sio n . T h is in c lu d e s e v id e n c e th a t all th re e D e f e n d a n ts
w er e i nvol ved i n l eade r s hi p pos i t i ons w i t h R I Y

— a g roup t hat
c o u n se led its m e m b e rs o n h o w to c o n c e a l au d it-trails in o rd e r to
a v o id d e tec tio n b y th e IR S , a n d th e f a c t th a t M c K e e d id n o t f ile hi s per s onal fede r al inco m e t axes . G i ven ourdefe r ent i al sta n d a rd o f re v iew , this e v id e n c e w a s c lea rlysu f f icie n t to convi nce a r eas onabl e fac t fi nder bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtt hat K e v in M c K e e h a d a g r e e d w ith th e D o n a to s to e n g a g e in pr act i ces t hati nt er fer ed w i t h t he gover nm ent ’ s abi l i t yt o col l ect t axes fr om t he mem ber s of R I Y w ho w er e empl oy ed byt he Par t nershi p, and thatal l t hr ee w er e cr i m i nal l ycul pabl e fort he P artnershi p ’s f

a ilur e t o fil e 94 1 fo rm s as charged i n C ou nts 2The e videnceof Jos eph and Ing e’s agree ment is even more 13 substantial than McKe e’s. Every thing we have discussed re g arding McKe e applies w ith greate r force to Joseph Donato who wa s more dire c tly inv olv e d in

thebu sin e ss o f t

hePart ne rs hip and

an e qu a lly active me mber of RIY. Ing e func tioned as the bookke eper . 54 t hr ough 13. 13 b. P art i ci pat i on . T o pr ove D efe ndant s ’ part i c i p a t i o n i n t he cons pi r acy , t he g o v e rn m e n t als o h a d to e sta b lish “ a ‘u n ity o f p u rp o se ,’ in ten t to achi eve a comm on goal , . . . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. W

exl er , 838 F. 2d 8 8 , 9 0 -9 1 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 8 ); s ee a lso U ni t ed Stat es v. A m er i can I nves t ors of

P i t t s bur gh, I nc. , 8 7 9 F . 2 d 1 0 8 7 , 1 1 0 0 (3d C ir . ),
cer t . deni ed , 493 U . S. 955 ( 1989) . T he governm entm us tpr offe r e v id e n c e th a t h e /sh e k n e w o f th e a g re e m e n t an d in ten d e d b o th to jo in it a n d to a c c o m p lis h its ille g a l o b je c ts . See U

ni t ed Stat es v . R a n k in , 8 7 0 F .2 d 1 0 9 , 1 1 3 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 9 ). O u r d isc u ss io n o f th e e v id e n c e o f a n a g re e m e n t is e q u a lly55 appl i cabl e her e. T he kn ow i ng and i nt ent i onal par t i ci pat i on of D efe ndant s i n t he char ged conspi r acy i s a fai r i nfer ence fr om t he evi dence of t hei rpos i t i ons i n R I Y and thei ri nvol vement i n t he Par t ner s hi p. A defe ndant ’s k n o w l edge a nd i nt entm aybe i nferr ed from conductt hatfur t her ed the purpos e of the
c o n s p ir a c y . See D i r ect

Sal es C o. v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 319 U . S. 703, 7 1 1 (1 9 4 3 ). I n g e ’s d e lib e ra te e m b ra c e o f th e c o n sp ira c ya n d its i l l egal obj ect i ves i s cl earfr om herr ol e i n t he pr epar at i on of t he fede r al payr ol l t ax r etur ns t hatfal s el yom i t t ed the names and
w ages of t he R I Y empl oy ees and fr om her s i gnatu re o n R IY emp loy ees ’ pay chec ks t hatM cK ee a nd D onat o di s t r i but ed. J os eph’ s del i ber at e par t i ci pat i on w as es t abl i s hed by hi s r ol e as s up erv isor o f M cK ee -D o n at o empl oy ees , hi s act i vi t i es m anagi ng t he bus i nes s , and ul t i m at el y by evi dence of hi s s i gnatur e on the p a yro ll r e c o rd s a n d ta x re tu rn s .56 K ev in M cK ee ’s pa rt ici p ati o n w as less d ir ec t. T o su p p o rt i t s ar gum entt hathi s convi ct i on s houl d be s us t ai ned, t he g o vernm ent r el i es on cas e l aw hol di ng t hat m ember s hi p i n a cons pi r acym aybe s at i sfied w i t h evi dence of onl ya s l i ght
c o n n e c tio n to th e s c h e m e . See U nit ed St ates v. Mc G l ory , 968 F . 2 d 3 0 9 , 3 2 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). H o w ever , “thos e havi ng no know l edge of

t he cons pi r acyar e notco n s pi r at or s . ” U ni t ed St at es v. Fal cone , 3 1 1 U. S . 2 0 5 , 2 10 ( 19 40 ) . “ At a mi n i mu m,

. . . i tm us tb e show n t hat. . . a per s on has know l edge of t he
cons pi r acy ’ s i l l i ci t purpos e w hen he per for m s act s w hi ch fur t her t hati l l i ci tpurpos e. ” U

n itedS ta tes v . K lein , 515 F. 2d 751, 753 (3 d C ir. 1 9 7 5 ). N e v e rth e les s, it g o e s w ith o u t sa y in g th a t,
n o tw ith sta n d in g th e q u a n tu m o f e v id e n c e n e e d e d to c o n n e c t a defe ndantto a gi ven s cheme, gui l tm us ts t i l l be es t abl i s hed bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . T o es t abl i s h M cK ee’ s par t i ci pat i on, w e must det er m i ne w hether t her e w as s uffi ci entevi dence fort he57 j ur yt o fi nd t hatM cK ee w as aw ar e of the natur e of the
c o n s p ir a c ya n d th a t h e w a s c o m m i t t e d to it. See U ni t ed Stat es v. D iP as qual e, 7 4 0 F .2 d 1 2 8 2 , 1 2 9 2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 4 ). M cK ee w as a name pa r t ner i n a bus i nes s ent i t yt hatw as obl i gat ed t o fi l e w i t hhol di ng forms and pa yw i t hhol di ng t axes to th e g o v e rn m e n t. A lth o u g h th e re lev a n t ta sk s w e re p rin c ip a lly
carr i ed outbyI nge D onat o, t he evi dence w e have al r eady di s cusse d , i ncl udi ng t he s i ze of t he part ner s hi p, t he gene r al k n o w ledg e o f e m p loy ee s tha t th e c h ec k s o f R IY m em b ers w ere d if f e re n t f ro m th o se o f

n o n m e m b e rs, a n d th e re latio n sh ip betw een the thr ee D e f

e n d a n t s , s uppor t s an i nfer ence t hatM cK ee knew and cons ent ed t o t h e manneri n w hi ch I nge ca r r i ed out t hos e t as ks , and t hat he par t i ci pat ed i n t he s cheme. M cK ee w as n o t an a b sen tee p artne r w h o k n ew n o thing o f th e P artne rship ’s act i vit i es. H e w as respon si ble fo r res olvi ng problem s that ar ose58 o n a g i v e n p r oj e c t ( Ap p . 3 1 9 ) ; s u p e r v i s i n g RI Ym em b er/em p loy ee s, assisti n g w ith h ir ing an d firi n g (A p p . 2 9 2 ), and per i odi cal l ydi s t r i but i ng pay chec ks t o R I Y - empl oy ees t hat al w ay s om i t t ed w i t hho lding . ( A pp. 327) A l t hough a
cons pi r at or ’ s s t ake i n t he ventur e i s not an es s ent i al el ement of t he cr i m e of cons pi r acy , t he exi s t ence of such a s t ake i s r el evant to th e q u e s tio n o f d e lib e ra te p a rt ic ip a tio n . See D i r ect Sal es C o. , 3 1 9 U . S . 7 0 3 , 7 1 3 . H ere , the D ef en d an ts’ stak e in the v en ture s at i s fi ed bot h a fi nanci al and a phi l os ophi cal m ot i ve; i tal l ow ed J os eph D onat o and K evi n M cK ee t o have a n i ncome w i t hout compromi s i ng t hei roppo sit ion t o t he t ax s y s t em becaus e they coul d under m ine t he governm ent ’ s abi l i t yt o col l ectt he t axes th e yo p p o s e d . A p p . 6 5 8 -5 9 . I n addi t i on, as w e pr evi ous l y s t r es s ed, the g overnm ent i nt r oduced e vi dence t hat th e fr audul entw i t hhol di ng w as59 c o m m o n k n o w le d g e a m o n g s t th e P a rt n e rs h i p ’ s e m p lo y e e s . A
r eas onabl e j uror c oul d cert ai nl yconcl ude thata name par t ner w i t h day
- t o- dayi n v o l v e m enti n M cK ee- D onat o al s o knew of t he f ra u d u len t ac tiv ity , a n d p a rticip a ted in it as a p a rtn e r. T h is is par t i cul ar l yt rue s i nce thatact i vi t ybenef i t t ed M cK ee by f u rth e rin g h is p e rso n a l b e lief sy ste m , w h ile a llo w in g h im to o f f e r e m p lo y m e n t to R IY -m e m b e rs th a t d id n o t co m p ro m ise h is
o p p o s itio n to th e “ w a r t a x .” I n Un i t e d

S t a t e s v . B e l l o mo , 176 F. 3d 580, 591- 592 ( 2d C ir. 1 9 9 9 ), th e d e f

e n d a n t’s c o n v ictio n w a s u p h e ld f o r h is par t i ci pat i on i n a K lein cons pir ac y consi s t i ng of ac t s of
conce al i ng i ncome. T he evi dence es t abl i s hed t hat t he def endant cont r ol l ed an or gani zat i on t hat fi l ed fal s e t ax r etur ns , and thathe
su p ervi s ed mem ber s of hi s “cr ew ” w ho col l ect ed moneyt hat
w as n ev er rep o rt ed to the IR S , inclu d ing the o rga n iz a ti o n ’s60 t r eas ur er . T he cour t concl uded t hat a r at i onal j ur orcoul d i nfer fr om t he i m por t ance of t he ca s h paym ent s t o defe ndant ’ s cr ew t hatt he def

endantm us thave been a w ar e of them and benefi t t ed f ro m th e m . Id . a t 5 9 1 . W e re a lize , o f

c o u rse , tha t th e P a r tn e rsh ip ’s b u sin e ss is
a farcryfr om t he i l l egal ent erpr i s e i n B e l l o mo . T h e re a re lim its in h e re n t in a n ya n a lo g yth a t atte m p ts to c o m p a re a leg it im a te hom e r epai rand ca rpentr ycom p an y t o a “bus i nes s ” oper at i on run byor gani zed c r i m e that i s conce r ned onl y w i t h pr ofi t and the
coer ci on and i nt i m i dat i on nece s s aryt o ens ur e i t . T he evi dence her e w as t hatt he Par t ner s hi p’ s bus i nes s w as conduct ed p ro f e ss io n a lly . T h u s, a n ya ttem p t to c o m p a re th e P a r tn e rsh ip
w i t h t he ent erpr i s e i n B e l l o mo , is l im it ed at be st. M o reo v er, unl i ke t he defe ndanti n B e l l o mo , M c K e e d id n o t in d e p e n d e n tly
con t rol t he o rgani zat i on t ha tfi l ed fa l se t ax ex em pt r eturns;61 M cK ee ’s bus i nes s m anage m entr es pons i bi l i t i es att he Par t ner s hi p w er e s i gni fi cant l yl es s t han t hos e of Jos eph D onat o. N onethel es s , M cK ee’ s act i vi t i es att he Par t ner s hi p, combi ned wi t h a l l o f

t h e o t h e r e v i d e n c e i n t h e c a s e i s s u f f i c i e n tt o a l l o w a j ur y t o concl ude t hat M cK ee w as al s o aw ar e thatfr audul entt ax r etur ns w er e bei ng fi l ed byt he P artne r s hi p, and thathe p a rt ic ip a te d in th e s c h e m e . D efe ndant s corr ect l yr emi nd us t hatas s oci ati on al one w ill n o t s u p p o rt a c o n v ic tio n f o r c o n s p ir a c y . U

ni t ed Stat es v. C o le , 7 0 4 F .2 d 5 5 4 , 5 5 7 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 8 3 ). H o w e v e r , th e re is
m u c h m o re h e re th a n m e re a ss o c iatio n . M o re o v e r, th e ju ryd id nothave t o i gnor e the ant i -t ax b eli efs of R I Y m ember s , ort he
asso ciati o n b etw ee n the D o n atos an d M cK ee , eit h er w ith in R IY
o r i n th e P a rt n e rs h ip its e lf. B as ed on t he evi dence w e have al r ea d y d i s cus s ed, t he62 par t i ci pat i on el ement i s al s o s at i s fi ed forbot h J os eph and I nge D o n a to . S e e S l e ig h t v . Uni t e d St at es , 8 2 F . 2 d 4 5 9 (D . C . C ir . 1 9 3 6 ) (a p a rtn e r i s li a b le f o r th e c rim in a l ac ts o f

a c o -p a rtn e r if h e p o s s e s s e s g u i l t y kn ow l edge o f th e c rim in a l ac t o f

h is
co- par tne rori s an ac ces s or yt her et o ei t herbefor e oraft ert he f a c t) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ); see al so U nit ed S tates v. W

ard , 168 F. 2d 2 2 6 , 2 2 9 (3 d C ir . 1 9 4 8 ) ( s a m e ).
c. O vert A ct Pr oof o f a K l ei n con spi racy al so requi res proof of at l east o n e o v ert act i n fu rt h era n ce o f th e c h arg ed co n sp ir ac y . A n o v ert act i s a n y a c t p e r f

o r me d b y a n y c o n s p i r a t o r f o r t h e p u rp os e of
a c c o m p lis h in g th e o b

je c t i v e s o f

th e c o n s p ir a c y . See U ni t ed St at es v. Fal cone , 311 U . S. 205, 207 ( 1940) ( “[T] he gi s tof t he
o ff en se o f c o n sp ir ac y. . . is ag ree m en t am o n g the c o n sp ir ators t o co m m it an off

ens e att ended byan ac tof one orm or e of the
cons pi r at or s t o eff

ectt he obj ectof t he cons pi r acy ”) . T he63 g o v ern m en t’ s ev iden ce o f an o v ert act fo cu sed o n Ing e D o n ato’s
ro le in th e p re p a ra tio n a n d f ilin g o f th e p a yro ll ta x e s . “The Supre m e C our t[has ] hel d t h at t he cr i m i nal actof
o n e c o n sp ira to r i n f

u rth e ra n c e o f th e c o n sp ira c y is a ttribu tab le t o t he othercons pi r at or s fort he p urpos e of hol di ng t hem
r es pons i bl e for t he s ubs t ant i ve offe ns e. ” U ni t ed St at es v. Lopez , 2 7 1 F. 3d 472, 480 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( ci t i ng P i nker t on v. U ni t ed St at es , 328 U . S. 640, 647 ( 19 4 6 )). ( quot at i ons and or i gi nal b ra c k e ts o m itt e d ); s ee al s o U ni t ed Stat es v. G uad a lupe , 979 F .2 d 7 9 0 , 7 9 3 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) ( U n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 1 , a convicti on forcons pi r acyr equi r es thatt he governm entpr ove bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt t hatt he def endant s agr eed t o defr aud t he U ni t ed St at es and thatone of t he cons pi r at or s comm i t t ed an
o v ert act i n fu rt h era n ce o f th e c o n sp ir ac y . ). H o w ev er, an o v ert actof one c ons pi r at or i s t he ac tof al l , even a bs entpr oof of a nyDe fend ants wereno t c ha rg e d w ithc on sp iringto c omm it a 14 substantive offe nse, but more g enerally with c o n spiringto defra

ud the United States. See United States v. Vasque z , 319 F.2d 381, 384 ( 3d Cir. 1963). Wil lfulness is not an element of the c rime of c onspiring to d efraud the United States. See U nited States v. Shoup , 608 F.2d 95 0, 95 6 ( 3d Cir . 197 9) . Ne ve rt he le ss, theDo natos a lso a rguethat, based on our

decision in United States v. Alston , 77 F.3d 713, 718- 21 (3 d Ci r. 19 96 ), the g ov e rnme nt wa s re qu ir e d to prov e , in a dditi on to the statutory

elements discussed in the c onspiracy section su

pra , that D e f e n d ant s a c t e d

w i l l f u l l y w i thr e s p e c tt o th e c h arg e d c o n s p i r a c y. We need not dete rmine whe ther that case added an additional ele ment to the crime of

conspirac y

to defraud the United States be causethere is c le arly su ff ic ie nt e vid e nc e of

the Def e nd ants ’ w ill fulne ss w ith reg ard to the substantive c harg es. 64 a g re e m e n t d ir e c te d to th a t a c t. U n itedS ta tes v . W

a lls , 225 F. 3d 8 5 8 , 8 6 4 (7th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). V iew ed ag ains t the b ac k d rop o f R IY ’s tax a n im u s, the P artne rship ’s fa il u re t o rep o rt inco m e o f it s R IY
m e m b e r e m p lo y e e s e sta b lis h e d th e o v e rt a c t o f c o n c e a lm e n t. S e e B e l l o mo , 1 7 6 F .3 d a t 5 9 1 -9 2 . A ccor d i n g l y , we r e

j e c tDef e n d a n t s ’ c h a l l e n g e t o t he
su f f icie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e to p ro v e th e c o n sp ira c yc h a rg e d in C ountO ne. 1465 3. Fai l ur e t o Fi l e I ndi vi dual Tax R e t ur ns
a ) In g e D o n a to In g e D o n a to c h a llen g e s th e su f f icie n c y o f

th e e v id e n c e to convi cther f

o r w il lf ul fai l ur e t o fi l e t ax r etur ns i n 1997 and 1 9 9 9 , C o u n ts 1 4 a n d 1 6 . T h e d istri ct co u rtg ran ted In g e’s
m o tio n to d ism iss C o u n ts 15 a n d 1 7 b e c a u se th e g o v e rn m e n t d id
n o t est ab li sh that sh e h ad inco m e f o r t h o se tax y ea rs. H o w ev er, t he cou r tdeni ed herm ot i on on C ount s 14 and 16 bas ed on
e v id e n c e o f in c o m e in th e f o rm o f p ro c e e d s o f th re e P a rtn e rsh ip chec ks t hatpur chas ed tw o car s t i t l ed i n hername, a n d a pai nt j ob on herhom e w her e s he l i ved w i t h J os eph . T o s us t ai n t he convi ct i on, t he evi dence m us tbe s uffi ci entt o pr ove eac h of t he fol l ow i ng elem ent s bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt : ( 1) s he w as r equi r ed t o fi l e t he t ax r etur ns ; ( 2 ) sh e fa il ed t o fi l e them; and (3 ) h e r f a ilu re w a s w illf

u l. See U ni t ed St at es v. Fos t er , 789 F. 2d66 457, 460 ( 7t h C i r . 1986) . A s w e w i l l expl ai n, w e agr ee thatt he g o v e rn m e n t’s e v id e n c e w a s n o t su f f icie n t to e sta b lish h e r g u ilt
o n C ou nts 14 and 16 bey on d a reasonab l e do ub t , and w e w i ll dir ectt he d i stri ctcou rt t o ent er a j ud gm ent of acqu i t t al on t ho se cou nts .A m a rrie d in d iv id u a l’s ta x re sp o n sib ili ties a re se p a ra te from t ho se of h er s po use w i t h res pect t o her o w n incom e un l ess s h e e le c ts to f

ile jo in tly. See 26 U . S. C . A . 1 ( a) ( M arr i ed i ndi vi dual s fi l i ng j oi ntr etur ns ) ; 26 U . S. C . A . 6013 ( J oi ntr etur ns of i ncome t ax b y h us band and w i fe) . A ccor di ngl y , t he di s t r i ct c o u rt in stru c ted th e ju rya s f o llo w s: [i ] f t he m ar r i ed coupl e fi l es no r etur ns , t he l aw pr es um es t hat t he t a x s t a tu s o f

t h e h u s b a n d a n d wi f

e i s ma r r i ed fil ing sep ara tel y . T h ere fo re, i f y o u fin d that n o tax re turn has been fi l ed by a m arr i ed per s on, y ou w i l l as s um e that hi s orhert axpay ers t atus w oul d be mar r i ed fi l i ng s e p a r a t e l y.67 A pp . at99 3. T he co urtth en inform ed the j uryof the gross annual i ncome needed t o t r i ggert he l egal r equi r ement t o fi l e t ax r etur ns i n 1997 and 1999 fora t axpay erw hos e fi l i ng s t atus w as m ar r i ed, fi l i ng s epar at el y . I n 1997 t hatamount w as $2, 650 and in 1 9 9 9 it w a s $ 2 ,7 5 0 . T he governm entconce ded i tlack ed evi dence t hatI nge D onat o w as compensa t ed forthe s er vi ces t hats he per for m ed for t he Par t ner s hi p w i t h a r egul arpay chec k, and thats he w as not pai d a s al ary . H ow ever , t he governm ent at t empt ed t o i m put e the pur chas e of hous ehol d i t ems w i t h M cK ee- D onat o chec ks t o her
as i ncome. T he governm ent es t abl i s hed t hat Par t ner s hi p chec ks t ot al i ng $29, 887. 80 w er e us ed t o pur chas e a H onda A ccor d and t o payfora pai ntj ob on t he D onat o’ s r es i dence i n D ece m ber 1997. T he ca rw as t i t l ed i n I nge’ s name. A p p. 852, 854. T he gover nm entt hus cl ai m ed t hat I nge’ s t ax obl i gat i on i n 1997 w as68 h a lf th e v a lu e o f th e A c c o rd a n d th e c o st o f p a in tin g th e D o n a to re s id e n c e , o r $ 1 4 ,9 4 3 .9 0 . For t he t ax y ear1999, t he govern me n tp r e s e n t ed evi dence t hatI nge ea r ned hal f of t h e v alue of an A cur a aut om obi l e that
w as pur chas ed w i t h a P ar t ner s hi p chec k ( $5, 100) . T hatcarw as al s o t i t l ed i n hername. T he governm ent ’ s theo ryw as t hatt he pr oc e e d s f

r o m t h e Pa r t n e r s h i p c h e c k s i n 1 9 9 7 a n d 1 9 99
cons t i tut ed i ncome t o herbeca us e i tr epr es ent ed compens at i on forw or k I nge di d for t he Par t ner s hi p. H ow ever , t he governm ent di d notes t abl i s h t hatt he pr ocee ds w er e i nt ended as c o m p e n sa tio n f

o r w o rk In g e d id f

o r th e P a rtn e rsh ip o r th a t if it
w as, Ing e k n ew that itw as so inten d ed an d that sh e th e re fo re h a d a d u ty to f

ile re tu rn s f

o r t h o s e y e a rs . A tt he out s et , w e not e that the g overnm ent ’ s t heoryof

“ c o m p e n sa tio n ” is te c h n ica l in th e e x tre m e in th a t it a ttem p ts to69 hol d I nge cr i m i nal l yl iabl e forknow l edge of t he def i ni t i on of “t axabl e i ncome” t hat w oul d m or e appr opr i at el y be expe ct ed of
a t ax at t or ney or acc ount ant , r ather t han a s pous e w ho hel ped out atherhus band’ s bus i nes s o v er t he y ear s . A l t hough t he g o v ern m en t argu es th a t the p aint job an d the c ars w ere co m p ensat i on i n l i eu of a s al ary , i tonl ychar ged herw i t h one hal f t he val ue of t he t w o car s and hal f t he val ue of the pai ntj ob. T her e i s no at t empt t o expl ai n w hy t he checks coul d notj us tas l i kel yhave be en i nt ended a s s uppor t , o ri nt erpr et ed as s uch. M or eover , i f t he paym entw as i nt ended a s compensa t i on forher
w o r k a t th e P a rtn e rsh ip , the re is n o th in g to e x p lain w h yo n ly h a l f o f t h e t o t a l a mou n to f

t h e t h r e e c h e c k s c o n s t i tu t ed compensa t i on al t hough t he ca r s w er e s ol el y i n her name, and no
e x p la n a tio n is a p p a re n t to u s . I n g e d i s p u t e s t h a t t h e c a r s a n d t h e p a i n tj o b we r e i n c o me70 u n d e r t h e tax law s. S h e a rg u e s th a t th e yw e re ju st a s lik e lyto h av e b ee n su p p o rto r g ift s fro m h er h u sb an d , the b rea d w inn er, a n d th a t th e yt h e r e f

o re d id n o t c o n s titu te in c o m e . See 26 U . S. C . A . §§ 61, 102( a) , 2501( a) ( “G r os s i ncome” fort ax p u rpo ses d o es n o t i n clud e g ift s, w h ich a re tax a b le t o d o n o r, rath er tha n to rec ipien t) ; s ee al s o B o rs I . B ittk e r & M a rtin M c M a h o n , J r., Fe d e ra l In c o m e T a x a tio n o f In d ivid u a ls , ¶ 5. 02 ( “A m ount s pai d bybr eadw i nner s t o s uppor tt hei r spous es and
m ino r ch il d ren are rou ti n elyex clud ed fro m the b en e f iciary ’s gr os s i ncome even t hough t hey sat i s fya l egal obl i gat i on. ”) (2 0 0 7 ). In g e o n lyh a d a d u ty to f ile if th e m o n e yth a t w a s u se d to p a yf o r t h e c a rs a n d th e p a in t jo b w a s in c o m e to h e r, an d n o t a g if t o r s u p p o rt . See, e. g. , 2 6 U .S .C . § 2 5 0 2 (c ) ( W h e n a g if t is
m ad e, th e g ifttax liabili tyfa ll s o n the d o n o r)
. E ven as s um i ng71 t hatt he pr ocee ds of t he P ar t ner s hi p chec ks cons t i tut ed i ncome, s he ca n notbe cr i m i nal l yl i ab le f o r f ai l i ng t o payt axes on t hat i ncome unl es s s he knew t hats he had a dut yt o payt he r es ul t i ng ta x e s a n d “ v o lu n ta ri ly an d in te n tio n a l ly v io la te d th a t d u ty.” C heek , 4 9 8 U . S . 192. T he governm entm us tpr ove thatan i ndi vi dual has a dutyt o fi l e a t ax re tur n bas ed on t he re cei ptof ta x a b le in c o m e . C law son v. U ni t ed Stat es , 198 F. 2d 792, 794 ( 9t h C i r . 1952) . H ow ever , “[o] nl yt rue i ncome can be
c o n sid e re d in d e ter m in in g w h e th e r [ a d e f e n d a n t] w a s o b lig e d to fi l e an ind i vi dual t ax r etur n, and . . . t he pr os ecut i on has t he burde n o f es t abl i s hi ng anym oneyr ece i ved as bei ng t rue i ncome. ” Id
. T he g ov ernm ent ci t es U ni t ed Stat es v. Fogg , 652 F. 2d 551, 553- 55 ( 5t h C i r . 1981) ; and U ni t ed Stat es v. La cob , 416 F .2 d 7 5 6 , 7 6 0 (7 th C ir. 1 9 6 9 ), to su p p o rt its a rg u m e n t th a t it72 est ab li shed a pr i m a f

aci e cas e bypr ovi ng t hatI nge r ece i ved
u n rep o rt ed fu n d s that h ad the ap p ea ran ce o f in co m e. H o w ev er, n e ith e r c a s e s u p p o rt s th a t c o n te n tio n . B ot h cas es i nvol ved i ndi vi dual s w ho r ece i ved funds i n consi d erat i on of a b usi ness a rra n g e m e n t o r f

o r le g a l w o rk a n d th e n f a iled to re p o rt it. M oreo v er, t he natur e of the cons i der at i on i n t hos e ca s es w as s uffi ci entt o i t s el f p u t t he r eci pi enton not i ce thathe w as r ece i vi ng compensa t i on. I n Fo g g, t he de fendantr ece i ved

“ k ic k b a c k s ” f

ro m a n o ra n g e ju ic e s u p p lie r. I d. at553- 54. T he defe ndantdi d notrep or tt hes e “ki ckbac ks ” as per s onal or c o rp o ra te in c o m e . I

d. at 54. T he cour t expl ai ned the s i tuat i on as fol l ow s: T hi s appea l conce r ns t he am azi ng at t empt of appel l ant , t he corpor at e pr es i dentof a thr ivi ng food s t or e chai n, t o s ki m appr oxi m at el y$80, 000 pery earoff the w hol es al e pr i ce thathi s company p a id f o r or a n g e ju ice a n d p o u r i t, t a x -f re e , into h is o w n p o c k e t.Gi ve n th e fre qu e nc y wi th which sp ou se s v olu nta ri ly he lp 15 out by doing w ork for the family business owned by the other spouse, the g eneral pr o p o s ition the gove rnment is relying upon c ould have sweeping conseque nces that would impose criminal t ax li ability for all manner

of g ifts and support. 73 Id . at553. T hati s nott hi s cas e, and Lacob does not advanc e the g o v e rn m e n t’ s p o s itio n a n yf a rt h e r. I n Lacob , the d e f

e n d a n t w a s a n a tto rn e ysp e c ializ in g in per s onal i njuryl i t i gat i on w ho r ece i ved funds i n t he form of
s et t l ement chec ks , butdi d not depos i t t he ent i r etyof t he che cks
r ece i ved; gi vi ng t he appe ar ance of havi ng r ece i v ed le s s and th e re b yu n d e rr e p o rt in g in c o m e to th e IR S . 4 1 6 F .2 d a t 7 6 0 . T h e g o v e rn m e n t p ro v id e s n o a u th o rityto su p p o r t it s c l ai m t hat a m arr i ed spo use’s pu rchase of shared ho u se h o ld i t ems w i t h a che ck fr om t he w or ki ng s pous e’ s bus i nes s put s t he
r ece i vi ng s pous e on not i ce thats om e por t i on of t he pr ocee ds
cons t i tut e i ncome w i t h a conc om i tant tax obl i gat i on. T he 1574 di s t r i but i ons t he governm entr el i es on her e coul d j u st a s re a so nab l ybe v i ew ed as sup po rtor a gi ftfrom Joseph D on ato to In g e . In d e e d , th e f

a c t th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t attrib u tes o n lyh a lf of t he v alue o f t he ca r s and the pai ntj ob t o I nge i s cons i s t ent
w ith th a t v iew . W ith o u t ev id e n c e ty in g th e se c h e c k s to compensa t i on forw or k I nge di d fort he bus i nes s herhus band par t i al l yow ned, t hos e che cks coul d just as w el l have be en c o n trib u tio n s to th e m a rital h o u se h o ld o r su p p o rt. T h is is par t i cul ar l yt rue of

t he funds us ed t o pai ntt he D onat os ’ hom e, and no att empt w as m ade t o s epar at e thos e pr ocee ds fr om p ro c e e d s to p u rc h a se th e tw o c a rs th a t w e re tit led so lelyin I nge’ s name. T h e re is n o e v id e n c e h e re th a t w o u ld a llo w a ju ryto
r eas onabl yr el at e the amount of anyof t he che cks t o t he amount of t i m e I nge “w or ked” a tt he Par t ner s hi p, ort o concl ude thatt he75 chec ks w er e i nt ended t o comp en s at e herforw or k s he had hi s t or i cal l ydone on an unpa i d bas i s . For exampl e, t he g o v ern m en t d id no t sh o w that h er h o u rs i n 1 9 9 7 an d 1 9 9 9 w ere s o m ar kedl ydi ffe r entt han her h o u rs i n ot hery ear s t hats he
w oul d have know n t hatt he che cks w er e i nt ended a s c o m p e n s a t i o n f

o rw o r k s h e h a d h i s t o r i c a l l y d o n e w i t h o u tp a y. S im il arly , there is n o ev iden ce that Ing e d id su b stan ti all ym o re w o rk in 1 9 9 7 th a n in 1 9 9 9 a n d th e re f o re n o a ttem p t to e x p lain th e d isp a rityin th e a m o u n ts o f th e P a rtn e rsh ip c h e c k s u se d to pur chas e the H onda and t he pai nt j ob one y ear( $14, 943. 90) , and th e A c u ra tw o y e a rs la te r ( $ 5 ,1 0 0 ). T h e o n ly d ire c t ev id e n c e th e g o v e rn m e n t p ro v id e d to pr ove thes e i t ems w er e i nt ended as compensa t i on for w or k done
a tt h e P a r t n e r s h i p c o n s i s t e d o f t h e “ e x p e r t ” t e s t i mo n yo f a n I RS agent . H e gave hi s l egal opi ni on t hatt he pur chas e of the H onda76 and A cur a and pai nt j ob cons t i tut ed i ncome c har geabl e t o I nge. H ow ever , t hatexpertopi ni on does notappea r t o be bas ed on any t h i n g mor e t h a n t h e c h e c k s a n d I n g e ’ s wor k a tt he Par t nershi p; w or k s he had hi s t or i cal l ydone w i t hout compensa t i on. M or eover , even i f w e acc ept t hat unsuppor t ed
o p inion, I nge i s no t ax expe r tand cl ear l ycan notbe cha r ged
w ith th e ta x k n o w led g e o f a p u rp o rte d IR S tax e x p e rt. F u r t h e r mo r e , a l t h o u g h t h e g o v e r n me ntc l a i ms t h a tt h e s e i t e ms cons t i tut ed a pe r s onal benef i tt o I nge, demonst r at i ng a per s onal benef i t i s not enough. Suppor t and gi ft s al s o benef itthe
r eci pi en t. I ndeed, i ti s har d t o i m agi ne gi vi ng a gi ftt hatt he gr ant ordoes noti nt end t o benef i tt he r eci pi ent . T he s ame i s t rue of s upp o r t ; i tcert ai nl ybenef i t s t he r eci pi entw ho m aybe depende nt upon i t . T hus , benef i tal one ca n notes t abl i s h i ncome. A t r ans fer of prope r t y i s i ncome i f i ti s t he r es ul tof “the77 con strai ning fo rce of anym oral or l egal du ty , c o n st i tutes a r ew ar d fors er vi ces r ender ed, orpr ocee ds fr om t he i ncent i ve of ant i ci pat ed bene fi tof an e co n o m ic natur e. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. H a rr is , 942 F. 2d 1125, 1128 ( 7t h C i r . 1991) ( qu o ti ng C o m m iss io n e r v . D u b e rs tein , 3 6 3 U . S . 2 7 8 , 2 8 5 (19 6 0 )). “U n d er C o m m is s io n v . D u b e rs tein , t he donor ’ s i nt enti s t he
cr i t i cal cons i der at i on i n di s t i ngui s h ing betw een gi ft s and i ncome. ” H

a rr is , 942 F. 2d at 1127 ( ci t at i ons an d q u o t at i on m ar ks om i t t ed) . T he evi dence her e does notes t abl i s h bey ond a
r eas onab le doubtt hatJ os eph i nt ended t o compensa t e I nge for h erhel p bygi vi ng herm oneyt o pai ntt he home t heyl i ved i n, ra th e r th a n s im p lyc o n v e y in g a g if t. “A tra n sf

e r o f p ro p e rtyis a gi fti f t he t r ans fer or act ed out of a det ache d and di s i nt er es t ed gener os i t y , . . . out of aff ect i on, r es pect , admi r at i on, char i t y , or l i ke i m pulse s . ” I

d. at1128 ( ci t at i on and quot at i on m ar ks
o m itte d ).78 H arris i s i n s t ru c t i v e . T h e r e , t h e j u r yc o n v i c t e d t wo w om en fort ax eva s i on bas ed on a s ubs t ant i al s um of m oney eac h w as pai d bya veryw eal t hyw i dow erw ho en j oy ed the
co m p an yo f y o u n g er w o m en . O n ap p ea l, the c o n v ict ion s w ere r ever s ed bec aus e t he evi dence fai l ed t o s how t h e m oneyw as i nt ended a s i ncome as oppos ed t o a gi ft , and bec aus e the gover nm entdi d notes t abl i s h t he re ci pi ent s knew t he moneyw as i nt ended a s i ncome. I n r ever s i ng, t he courtof appe al s expl ai ned, “[t ] hi s fai l ur e t o s how [t he donor ’ s ] i nt enti s fat al to t he gover nm ent ’ s cas e. ” Id
. a t 1 1 2 9 . T he s ame f

at al fl aw under m i nes t he governm ent ’ s pr oof her e. M o reo ver , even i f J os eph i nt ended the che cks as compensa t i on, t her e i s not hi ng t o s h o w t hatI nge knew of any
s uch i nt enton J os eph’ s par tfor the Par t ner s hi p chec ks s he
r ece i ved i n 1997 and 1999. A ccor di ngl y , herconvi cti ons onB e c a us e were verse Ing eDo nato’ s c onvic tio n o n th os e 16 Counts, we need not a ddress he r c h al l en ge to the per tinent jury ins tr uc tio ns . 79 C o u n ts 1 5 a n d 1 7 c a n n o t sta n d , a n d w e w ill re m a n d w ith i ns t ruct i ons t o vaca t e the convi ct i ons on t hos e count s , and ent er a ju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itt a l. 16 b ) J o sep h D o n a to J os ep h D o n at o al s o ar gues t hatt he governm entdi d not pr ove hi s fai l ur e t o fil e an i ndi vi dual fede r al t ax r etur n w as w ill f u l. A s is ev iden t from th e p rec ed ing d iscu ssion o f In g e’s convi ct i on, and as t he C our t of A ppeal s for t he Si xt h C i r cui thas
e x p lain e d : T he w or d “w i l l ful l y , ” as us ed i n t hi s s t atut e, m eans a vol unt ary , i nt ent i onal vi ol at i on of a kn ow n l egal dut y . I n ot herw or ds , t he def endant m us t have act ed vol unt ar i l y and i nt ent i onal l yand w i t h t he s peci fi c i nt entt o do s om ethi ng he knewWe rec ognize th at this same evidenc e applies w ith equal 17 forc e to Ing e; however, as weh av e ex plained, the e videncedid not e sta bli shthat sh e ha d a

duty to f ile , a nd proof of he r w ill fulne ss i s there forenot enough t o s up p ort a c onviction. On the other ha nd, J oseph Donato knew that he had income from his Par tn er s h i p ; the b u s i n es s wa s h i s l i v el i h o o d , an d th er e i s n o i s s u e ab o uth i s k n o wl ed ge of his duty

to file. We of c ours e a

pp re c iate the fa c t that the jur y qu itenatura lly may have be lieved that Ing e would not have paid t axes on any of the inc omesh e re c e ive d f

ro m th e Part

ne rs hip e ve n if

Josephint e nd e d to c omp e ns ate he r and e ve n if sh e kn e w o f t hat inte nt. Ho we ve r, that is not disposi t i v e. Ab sent that intent on the part of J oseph, and a

bsent 80 t he l aw pr ohi bi t ed, t hati s t o s ay , w i t h i nt entei t her t o di so beyort o di s r egar d t he l aw . N egl i gent con du cti s not s uff

i ci ent t o co nst i tute w i l l fulness. U n it ed St at es v. Tarwat er , 3 0 8 F . 3 d 4 9 4 , 5 1 0 (6th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). T h is e lem e n t is sa tisf

ied h e re b ye v id e n c e o f

Jo se p h ’s f

a ilu re to fi l e, t o g et herw i t h hi s par t i ci pat i on i n r out i ne s t r at egys es s i ons w ith R IY m e m b e rs r e g a rd in g h o w to a v o id th e c re a tio n o f a u d it t r ai l s , hi s fai l ur e t o fi l e feder al payr ol l t axes fort he empl oy ees o f M c K e e -D o n a to , e v id e n c e o f h is ta x p ro tes t ac tiv iti e s, a n d h is know l edge of

t he convi ct i on and s ent enci ng of Leo V ol pe for fai l ur e t o payfede r al i ncome t ax. 17Ing e ’s kn ow le dg e of su c h a n inte nt, sh e si mp ly c an n ot b e he ld criminally

liable for not f

iling re turns as wehave e xplained. 81 A l t hough a re as onabl e j ur y coul d not concl ude thatI nge D onat o w as gui l t yof a f ai l ur e t o fi l e heri ndi vi dual t ax r etur ns o n th e s tr e n g th o f

th e e v id e n c e p re s e n te d , s e e Uni t e d St at es v. C ooper , 1 2 1 F . 3 d 1 3 0 , 1 3 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ), Jo sep h D o n ato’s
c o n v ictio n is su p p o rte d b y th e e v id e n c e . A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill
a f f irm Jo se p h D o n a to ’ s c o n v ictio n f o r f a ilu re to f

ile h is in d iv id u a l f

e d e ra l ta x re tu rn s . C . E vi dent i ary C hal l enges K evi n M cK ee c h a l l e nges s ever al evi dent i aryrul i ngs , and Inge an d Joseph D on at o ad op t s o m e of those chall eng es. A l t hough w e have al r eady gr ant ed al l of t he D efe ndant s a new t r i al on C ount s 2 t hr oug h 13, w e s t i l l m us tcons i dert he
e v id e n tiary c h a llen g e s re lev a n t to th o se C o u n ts i n o r d e r to p rov ide g u idan ce sh o u ld th e g o v ern m en t cho o se to retryOur discus sio n o f t hee vid e nti ary chal le ng e s p e rt a ini ngto 18 Counts 2 through 13 ne cessa rily overla ps our discussion of the su ff ic ie nc y of thee vid e nc e be c a

us e muc h o f t

hesame evide nc e is rele vant to other counts in the indictment a nd that evidenc e had to be considere d as par

t of our analy s i s of the suff iciency of the e vidence to c onvic t on

oth e r c ounts . 82 D efe ndant s, an d al s o t o det er m i ne i f a ne w t r i al s houl d be gr ant ed on anyof t he r emai ni ng count s . W e ho ld thata new t r i al i s nece s s aryonl yforC ount s 2 th rou gh 13 bas ed upon the
cons t ru c t i v e a me ndm entt o t he j ur yi ns t ruct i on t hatw e di s cus s ed
a t th e o u tse t. 18 M cK ee c hal l enges t he evi dence c o n c e rn i n g t he arr es tand pr os ecut ion o f L eo V ol pe. H e ar gues t hatt hi s evi dence w as irrelev an t and u n d u lyp rejud ici al be ca u se “ [a ] de fe n d an t ha[ s] a
r i ghtt o have hi s gui l tori nnocenc e det er m i ned byt he evi dence p re se n ted a g a in st h im , an d n o t b yw h a t h a p p e n e d w ith re g a rd to
a cr i m i nal pr os ecut i on agai ns t s om eone e l s e. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Toner , 1 7 3 F .2 d 1 4 0 , 1 4 2 (3 d C ir. 1 9 4 9 ). A lth o u g h w e c e rta in ly83 agr ee t hat none of the D efe ndant s coul d be convi ct ed bas ed on h is a ss o c ia ti o n w ith L e o V o lp e , tha t d o e s n o t m e a n th is
ar gum ent has m er i t . A s t he governm entpoi nt s out , a j ur ym ay pr oper l yt ake i nt o acc ount t he defenda nt ’ s aw ar enes s of r el evant ci r cums t a n c e s , i n c l u d i n g r e l e v a n tc o u rtd e c i s i o ns t hatunder m i ne a def endant ’ s good fai t h defe ns e w i t h r egar d t o i nt erpr et at i on of th e In te rn a l R e v e n u e C o d e . See Cheek , 4 9 8 U .S . a t 2 0 2 . W hen w i l l ful nes s i s an el ement of a char ged t ax off ens e, cour t s r out i nel y al l ow t he governm ent t o i nt r oduce ev ide nce that, p ri o r t o the co n d u ct in q u esti o n , a d ef en d an t bec am e a w are o f th e ta x im p ro p ri e tie s in h e re n t in th a t c o n d u c t. S e e , e .g ., U ni t ed Stat es v. D ack , 9 8 7 F . 2 d 1 2 8 2 , 1 2 8 5 (7th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). V ol pe’ s pr o sec u t i on and convi ct i on forfai l ur e t o payt axes based o n rel i gious pract i ces em braced b yt he D ef e nd ants , t oget herw i t h M cK ee’ s know l edg e o f t hos e fa ct s , w er e thus84 p ro p e rlya d m itt e d f

o r t h e p u rp o se o f

d isp ro v in g h is g o o d f

a ith defe ns e eve n tho u g h V ol pe’ s char ges w er e noti dent i cal t o t he char ges her e. W e al s o agr ee w i t h t he governm entt hatw hether t he j ur yw as corr ect l y ad v ised t hatV ol pe w as convi ct ed of
w ill f u l f a ilu re to p a y a tax o r w ill f u l f a ilu re to f

ile is irr e lev a n t. T he appl i cabl e s t atut e, 26 U . S. C . § 7203, governs per s ons w ho bot h fai l t o fi l e and fai l t o payt axes and the w i l l ful nes s el ement appl i es equal l yt o bot h. W e l i kew i s e fi nd t hatt he admi s s ion o f evi dence
re g a rd in g M c K e e ’s m a rria g e to V o lp e ’s w id o w w a s p ro p e rly admi t t ed. W e r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s rul i ng forpl ai n err or w her e, as her e, t here w as no obj ect i on. A pp. 716 ( obj ect i on m ad e a n d wi t h d r a wn) . Aft e rVol p e d i e d , Vol p e ’ s wi dow
a ss u m e d a lea d e rsh ip ro le w ith in R IY . M c K e e a ss iste d h e r in t h e l e a d e r s h i p o f

RI Y, a n d t h e ys u b s e q u e n t l yma r r i e d . As we85 have e xpl ai ned, evi dence of a t ax pr ot es t or’s act i vi t i es and p h i l o s o p h ie s is a d m is s ib le to p ro v e w illf u ln e s s . S ee , e.g., Gr o s s hans , 821 F. 2d at1252. M cK ee’ s r el at i ons hi p w i t h t he l eade rof an or gani zat i on t hatpr om ot ed t ax- pr ot es t or p h ilo so p h ies , an d h is le a d e rsh ip ro le, is re lev a n t to h is
w il lfu lnes s. M o reo v er, ev en if the ev iden c e o f M cK ee ’s
m ar r i age t o V ol pe’ s w i dow w as i m pr oper l y admi t t ed, anyerr or w o u ld h ave been ha r m l es s i n l i ghtof t he overw hel m i ng evidence o f M cK ee’s t ax an i m us. D efe ndants all obj ectt o t he admi s s i on of s t at ement s by In g e to a ra d io talk -sh o w h o st, a n d sta tem e n ts b yJo se p h D o n a to t o l aw enfor cementag en ts . W e al s o r evi ew t hos e rul i ngs for pl ai n err orand fi nd none. A par t fr om I nge’ s admi s s i on t hats he does not payt axes , I nge’ s s t at ement s w er e off er ed t o s how t hat R I Y m ember s openl ypr ot es t ed t axes . T hats ugges t s an ant i
- t ax86 p h il o so p h yw h ich w a s relev an t t o p rov ing Ing e D o n ato’s
w i l l ful nes s . W e not e y et agai n t hat evi dence of w i l l ful nes s m ay be fo un d in a defen dan t ’s t ax p rot estact i vit i es an d p hil osop hies . See H ogan , 8 6 1 F . 2 d at 31 6 (d ef en d an t’ s att itu d e tow ard I nt er nal R evenue Ser vi ce w as r el evantas i ndi cat i on of
w ill f u ln e ss o f h is a ttem p ted tax e v a sio n ); G rosshans, 821 F. 2d
a t 1 2 5 2 . M o re o v e r, th e lim iti n g in stru c tio n s w e re su f f icie n t to ens ur e thatt he j ur yconsi der ed the s t at ement s eac h defe ndant
m ade onl y w i t h r egar d t o hi s or herow n gui l tw her e appr opr i at e. M cK ee a nd D on ato offe ran al t ernat i ve bas i s fort he judge ’ s al l eged e r r ori n admi t t i ng I nge’ s s t at ement s overt he
r adi o. T hey m ai nt ai n t hat t he adm i s s i on cons t i tut ed pl ai n err or undert he C onfr ont at i on C l aus e of the Si xt h A m endm entand vi ol at ed the rul e of B r ut on v. U ni t ed Stat es , 39 1 U . S . 123 (1 9 6 8 ). M c K e e a n d In g e m a k e th e sa m e c laim s w ith re g a rd to J o s e p h Do n a t o ’ s s t a t e me n t s t o t h e I RS . A B r ut on a n a ly sis is87 t ri gg ere d w here an ad m i ssi on of a c o-defen dan ti s so “pow er ful l yi ncr i m i nat i ng” or“deva s t at i ng” t h at a l i m i t i ng in stru c tio n f

a ils to a d e q u a tely sa f

e g u a rd th e d e f

e n d a n t’ s S ix th A m en d m en t r igh ts. 3 9 1 U . S . at 13 5 -36 . A lth o u g h Ing e’s
s t at ement w as not a ful l confe s s i on, i t pr ovi ded evi denc e that supp ort ed a key el em ent of t he go vernm ent’ s case: w i l l fulness. H o w e v e r, w e d o n o t ag re e th a t th e c irc u m sta n c e s h e re im p lica te B r ut on . T h e sta tem e n ts in q u e stio n a d d e d lit tle, if a n y th in g , to the to tal ityo f th e e v ide n c e ag ains t eac h d ef en d an t, the c o u rt gave appr opr i at e caut i onary i ns t ruct i ons , and t he ci r cumst ance s are not such as t o n egate the ef fect i ven ess of t ho se i nst ruct i on s. T hus , t he cou rt ’s rul i ngs on t hes e s t at ement s r eadi l ys ur vi ve p la in e rr o r r e v ie w . See O l ano , 5 0 7 U .S . a t 7 3 2 . M or eover , even i f t he di s t r i ctcour terr ed i n admi t t i ng t he rad io b roa d ca st ev iden ce , it w a s h arm less. A side fro m Ing e’s88 br oadca s t , t her e w as s ubs t ant i al evi dence t o es t abl i s h t hatI nge, M cK ee, and Jos eph D onat o had expr es s ed thei rcomm i t t ed oppos i t i on t o pay i ng t he “w art ax. ” A pp. 321, 336- 37, 531- 33, 6 2 4 -2 5 , 6 5 0 -5 2 . F u rth e r m o re , D e f e n d a n ts’ c o n c e d e d th e ir b e lief s a b o u t th e im m o ra lityo f th e f e d e ra l tax sy ste m a n d th e ir
s e l f
- e x e m p tio n f

ro m th e re v e n u e la w s . See Vi r gi n I s l ands v. Jos eph , 964 F . 2 d 1380- 90 ( 3d C i r . 1992) ( hol di ng t hat admi s s i on of evi dence i n vi ol at i on of C onfr ont at i on C l aus e w as h arm les s b ec au se itd id n o t r elate to the co n test ed issue b ef o re ju ry). Li k e wi s e , t h e r e wa s n o p l a i n e r r o r i n p e r mi t t i n g t h e I RS ag e n t t o tes t i fyabo ut J oseph D on at o’s adm i ssi on s. T hese i ncl uded R IY ’s open conde m nat i on of t he “w art ax, ” the nonfi l i ng hi s t or yof R I Y ’ s m ember s , and M cK ee’ s s t atus as D onat o’ s bus i nes s par t ner . A pp. 292, 354, 618- 25, 648- 49, 658-De fend ants fu rt he r alle g e that the a dmi ssi on of Ing e ’sradio 19 interview a

nd J oseph Donato’s statements to the I R S also violated the ir F if th Ame ndme nt ri ght to a fa ir tria l. Th is ad ds no thi ngto t he ir B r u ton claims. See B ruton , 3 9 1 U . S . at1 3 5 - 3 6 ( an a l y z i n gth e f a ir trial consequences of

Confrontation Clause violatio ns). Moreover, we reje c t th e De fend ants ’ F if th Ame ndme nt c la im f

or thesame re a so ns were

je c t th e ir Sixth Amendme nt c la im.

89 59, 161- 64. D efe ndant s ’ t ax pr ot es t orphi loso p h ie s and nonfi l i ng hi s t or i es w er e notcont es t ed, norw as D onat o ’ s s t atus as M cK ee ’s pa rt n er. 19 D . P ros ecut ori al M i s conduct Fi nal l y , D ef

en d an ts argu e tha t the governm entcomm i tt ed
r ever s i bl e mi s conductdur i ng cl os i ng ar gum ent byques t i oni ng t he s i ncer i t yof t hei r r el i gi ous bel i efs . D efe ndant s cont end that
m i s conductoccurr ed w hen the pr os ecut i on as ked the j ur yw hy t he D efe ndant s w oul d notpayst at e t axes i f t hei rr el i gi ous bel i efs w er e genui nel ybas ed on the “w ar ” t ax. T he pr os ecut or th u s s u g g e ste d th a t th e o n lyre a so n D e f e n d a n ts f

a iled to f

ile90 s t at e t axes w as t o hi de thei r t ax pr ot es t oract i vi t i es , and t o “s t ay und er the r adar . ” A pp. 1007. H e al s o ques t i oned how D e f e n d a n ts’ b e lief

s e x p lain e d th e ir e v a s io n o f S o c ial S e c u rity
an d M ed icare tax es. W e d o n o t b eli ev e that the p rose cu ti o n ’s
rem arks “r esul t ed in an eg regio u s err or or a m anifest
m i s carr i age of j us t i ce. ” U nit ed S t ates v. Ir i

zarry , 341 F. 3d 273, 3 0 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). A l t hough t hes e r emarks maybe vi ew ed as exce s s i ve or over l yzea l ous , t heycan a l s o be vi ew ed as a pr opercomm enton t he evi dence . T hr oughoutt he tr i al, D efe ndant s i nt r oduced
e v i d e n c e o f t h e i r g o o d
- f a i t h b e l i e f a s we l l a s t h e a b s e n c e o f I RS act i on des pi t e thei ropen t ax pr ot es t , t o pr ove thei rl ack of
c rim in a l in ten t. T h e se th e m e s w e re a d v a n c e d b y D e f e n d a n ts in t heirop ening st at em ents , t heircross -exam i nati on of w i t nesses, and i n di r ectevi dence of cha r act erand opi ni on evi d en ce ofDe fend ants c on c e dethat a pp e lla nt Mc Ke e ’s op e nin gthe me 20 did advanc e the themeof re ligious sincerity , but argue that an openingis not evidenceand the g overnme nt’s reme dy, if McKe e we nt too far, w as not to retaliatein closing, but to object and a sk the court to enforc e its pretria l rulings. Donatos’ Reply Br . at 13, n.6. 91 h o n e s t y, t ru t h f

u l n e s s a n d s i n c e r i t y. S e e , e .g ., A pp. 306 20 ( defe ns e cr os s - exam of w i t nes s C hamber s r egar di ng J os eph D onat o ’s g enui nel yhel d bel i ef a gai ns tpay i ng fede r al t axes beca us e he c ons i der ed i t a w ar t ax) , 336- 37 ( defe ns e cr os s - exam of w i t nes s G rus zkow s ki r egar di ng D onat o’ s bel i ef thatt he fede ral t ax sup po rt ed w ar or kil l i ng ), 63 8-39, 68 8, 49 5 (defen se cr os s - e x a m of

wi tn e s s Not o r egar di ng defe ndant s ’ r eput at i on for h o n e s ty an d tr u s tw o rt h in e s s ), 5 0 3 (s a m e , w itn e s s G ib s o n ). B ut
com par e A p p . 1 0 2 6 -27 (de fe n se c losing arg u ing that D o n ato’s reli g io u s b eli ef

ag ains t pay ing the w ar tax is no t his de fe n se), 1 0 3 2 -3 3 (d e f

e n se c lo sin g a r g u m e n t th a t in d iv id u a l d e f e n d a n ts
w er e underno obl i gat i on t o deduct t axes , onl y t he cons t ruct i on92 c o m p a n yits e lf

). T he pr os ecut i on w as t hus ent i t l ed t o chal l enge D efen dan t s’ i m pli ci tgo od -fai th d efen se, and t o p reem pti v e ly addr es s anys y m pathyar i s i ng fr om t he D efe ndant s ’ r el i gi ous view s. CO NC L US I ON F o r t he for egoi ng r eas ons D efe ndant s ’ convi ct i ons on C o u n t 1 f

o r co n sp ir ac yto d ef

rau d the U n it ed S tat es a re aff i r me d . Howev e r , b a s e d o n o u rc o n s t ru c t i v e a me n d ment analy si s, w e w il l vacate D efen dan t s’ con vict i on s on C ou nts 2 t hr ough 13 of t he super s edi ng i ndi ct m entand r emand fora new t r i al on t hos e count s . I nge D onat o’ s convi ct i ons on C ount s 14
an d 1 6 w il l al so b e rev erse d an d v ac ated , an d the d istri ct co u rt
w i l l be o rder ed to ent er a j ud gm ent of acqu i t t al on bo t h o f t ho se c o u n ts o n re m a n d .