FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT Marc h 25, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 12287 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 8 0 0 2 8 - C R - DT KH U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s E R I C I N N E S , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ar c h 25, 2008) B efo re M A R C U S , W IL S O N an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A ju ry c o n v ic te d E r ic I n n e s o f th r e e c o u n ts o f

ta x e v a s io n , f

o rw h ic h h e isAs the Supreme Court ha s expl ained, 26 U.S.C. § 7201 may be violated by

evading 1 assessment or evadingpay ment of taxes. Sansone v. United States, 380 U.S. 343, 354 (1965).

2 se rvi ng three concurrentthi rty- se ven m on th sent ence s. H e now ar gu es the tri al c o u r tc o mmi tt e d i n s tru c t i o n a l e rr o r . W e a f f i r m. I . I nne s , a c hi r opr a c t or , di d notf i l e f e de r a l i nc om e t a x r e turns f or1992 throu gh 19 99 . T he three vi ol at i on s of 26 U . S . C . § 7 20 1 w i th w hi ch he w as c ha r ge d w e r e e va s i on of a s s e s s m e ntf

ort a x y e a r1998, e va s i on of a s s e s s m e ntf

or t ax ye ar19 99 , and evasi on of paym entfor t ax ye ar s 199 2-19 95 . Innes a dm i tt ed 1 tha the di d notpa y t a xe s orf i l e r e turns f

orthe s e y e a r s , buta r gue d tha the di d not d o so w i l l fu l l y. I n n e s o w n e d th e c lin ic w h e r e h e p r a c tic e d , th e T e q u e s ta F a m ily C h ir o p r a c tic C l i ni c. In 19 96 , Innes e st abl i shed a w ho l l y- ow ned com pany ca l l ed N atural B al ance C hi ropract i c C orpo ra t i on t o o w n and op er at e the cl i ni c. N atural B al ance ne ve rf i l e d t a x r e turns , s t a t e orf e de r a l , of

a ny s or t . I nne s a l s o e s t abl i s he d a ba nk ac coun tfor N atural B al ance i n 1 99 6, and p ay m entfor profes si on al se rvi ce s r e nde r e d by I nne s w a s m a de t o N a tur a l B a l a nc e . H i s of f i c e a s s i s t a nt , E l e a nor W a s s e r , k e p t r e c o r d s c o n c e rn in g p a tie n t v is its a n d p a y m e n ts . B egi nn i ng i n 1 99 2, Innes a l so w orked as adi stri bu t or for A m az on H erb C o m p a n y , f

o rw h ic h h e r e c e iv e d s a le s c o m m is s io n s . T h e d is tr ib u tio n c o n tr a c t w ithKathry nan d Eri caInn es h av e n o tb ee nac cu s edo f any wr o n gd o i n g. 2 3 A m a z on H e rb w a s or i gi na l l y i n I nne s ’ s na m e . I nne s a s s i gne d the r i ght s unde rthe A m a z o n H e rb c o n tr a c t to N a tu r a l B a la n c e in 1 9 9 6 ; th e r ig h ts w e r e s u b s e q u e n tly a s s i gne d t o I nne s ’ s da ught e rK a thry n i n J a nua ry 1999, the n r e - a s s i gne d f r om K athryn t o N atural B al ance i n 2 00 1. N atural B al ance tra nsfe rr ed the contra ct ri gh t s t o E ri caInnes, anot her daugh t er , i n F ebruary20 04 , on ce the cr i m i nal i nve s t i ga t i on of

E r i c I nne s w a s unde rw a y . O nc e N a tur a l B a l a nc e w a s e s t abl i s he d, 2 I n n e s ’s c o m m is s io n s f

r o m A m a z o n w e r e d e p o s ite d in th e N a tu r a l B a la n c e a c c o u n t. O n c e N a tu r a l B a la n c e w a s e s tab lis h e d in 1 9 9 6 , I n n e s f r e q u e n tly p a id pe r s ona l e xpe ns e s f

r om i t s a c c ount . A tf

i r s t , he s i m pl y w r ot e c he c ks f r om the N a tur a l B a l a nc e a c c ountt o hi s c r e di t or s . A f t e rI nne s w a s a udi t e d a nd l e vi e d upon, as expl ai ned b el ow , he became m ore s urre pt i t i ou s. T here af t er , he caused N atural B al an ce t o w ri t e ch eck s p ayab l e t o cash , o r t o h i s w i fe, w h o cash ed th e ch eck s; I nne s the n us e d the c a s h t o pa y pe r s ona l e xpe ns e s . I n a ddi t i on t o hi s us e of c a s h, I nne s a l s o s oughtt o a voi d c r e a t i ng a pape rtr a i l by pur c ha s i ng m one y or de r s or ca shi er s’ chec ks t o p ay pers on al expenses . W hen t he bank i nform ed hi m that m o n ey o rd ers o v er $ 3 , 0 0 0 w ere su b j ectt o h ei g h t en ed reco rd k eep i n g req u i rem en t s, h e th e r e a f

te r“s tru c tu r e d ” h is m o n e y o r d e rp u r c h a s e s b y p u r c h a s in g m u ltip le m one y or de r s , e a c h of

l e s s tha n $3, 000.4

I n 1997, the I R S be ga n a c i vi l a udi tof I nne s f ort a x y e a r s 1992 thr ough 19 95 . T he audi tdet erm i ned t hatInnes ow ed abou t$5 0, 00 0 i n b ac k t axes . A s of a D ec em ber 28, 19 98 form al as se ss m ent , Innes’ s l i abi l i ty t o the go vernm entw as abou t$1 20 , 00 0 (i ncl ud i ng i nt er es tand p enal t i es ). T he IR S then n ot i fi ed Innes that it w o u ld le v y h is p r o p e r ty ; s o o n th e r e a f te r , I n n e s b e g a n ta k in g s te p s to h id e h is in c o m e , in c lu d in g w r itin g N a tu r a l B a la n c e c h e c k s to c a s h r a th e rth a n d ir e c tly to h is c r e di t or s , a nd tr a ns f

e rr i ng the A m a z on di s tr i but or s hi p t o K a thry n. A ft erthe i ni t i al as se ss m ent , the IR S cont i nu ed t o i nv es t i gat e N atural Ba l a n c e c o n c e rn i n g t a x y e a r s 1 9 9 6 th r o u g h 1 9 9 9 . A s p a r to f i t s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , I RS agent s s ou gh tt o o bt ai n fi nanci al re cords of N atural B al ance . F i rs t , as partof a ci vi l audi t , agent s vi si t ed the chi ropract i c c l i ni c on O ct ob er31 , 20 01 , t o serve a s um m ons on I nne s r e qui r i ng hi m t o pr oduc e r e c or ds of N a tur a l B a l a nc e f

or1997 - 19 99 . Innes w as no tpres entathi s off i ce w hen t he agent s a rr i ved, bu tW as se r t el epho ned Inn es i n the agent s’ pres ence t o n ot i fy hi m of the sum m on s. L at er , Innes a nd hi s a tt orney app ea re d i n res po nse t o the sum m on s a nd st at ed thatN atural B al ance had n o res po nsi ve re cords. IR S agent s vi si t ed the chi ropract i c off i ce D e c e m be r6, 2001, a nd s a w i n pl a i n vi e w phy s i c a l c opi e s of pa t i e nt s ’ pa y m e nt r e c or ds , w hi c h w e r e r e s pons i ve t o the s um m ons . A f t e rbe i ng m a de a w a r e of the agent s’ vi si t , Innes r em ov ed tho se re cords f rom hi s off

i ce t o h i s hom e. In Ja nu ary5

2 0 0 4 , o n c e I n n e s w a s u n d e rc r im in a l in v e s tig a tio n , th e g r a n d ju ry s u b p o e n a e d a ll N atural B al ance ’ s f

i nanci al re cords f

rom 19 96 go i ng forw ar d. In re spon se , Innes t e l e phone d the U ni t e d S t a t e s A tt orne y ’ s of f i c e a nd l e f

ta m e s s a ge s a y i ng tha the h a d n o r e s p o n s iv e r e c o r d s b e y o n d th o s e a lr e a d y in th e g o v e rn m e n t’s p o s s e s s io n . I R S a ge nt s l a t e re xe c ut e d a s e a r c h w a rr a ntof I nne s ’ s hom e i n F e brua ry 2004 a nd r e c ove r e d m a ny r e c or ds tha tw e r e r e s pons i ve t o both the c i vi l s um m ons a nd the grand j ury s ub po ena, i ncl ud i ng pat i ent s’ paym entre cords a nd N atural B al ance d ep o si tsl i p s, as w el l as cash , b an k t el l er ch eck s, an d a b o o k ab o u th i d i n g asset s. A ttr i a l , the I R S a ge nt s t e s t i f i e d, ba s e d on ba nk r e c or ds a nd pa t i e ntpa y m e nt r e c or ds obt a i ne d vi a the s e a r c h, tha tI nne s ow e d i ndi vi dua l i nc om e t a xe s of ap p r o x im a te ly $ 3 0 ,0 9 5 f o r1 9 9 8 a n d ap p r o x im a te ly $ 9 ,3 7 1 f o r1 9 9 9 . T h e c iv il as se ss m enthad est abl i shed hi s t ax l i abi l i ty f or 19 92 -95. T he go vernm entoffe re d di r e c tpr oof

of I nne s ’ s i nc om e by s how i ng tha the r e c e i ve d pa y m e nt s f r om p a tie n ts , r e c e iv e d c o m m is s io n s , a n d m a d e c a s h e x p e n d itu r e s o n p e r s o n a l e x p e n s e s . I n n e s d id n o t c o n te s t th a t h e h a d s u b s ta n tia l ta x liab ility f o re a c h o f

th e ta x y e a r s in que s t i on. T hr ough a pa t i e nt , I nne s w a s i ntr oduc e d t o a t a x- pr ot e s t orgr oup i n 1991, w h ic h d e lu d e d h im in to b e lie v in g th a t p a y m e n t o f ta x e s w a s v o lu n ta ry – h e n c e h is f a ilu r e to f

ile r e tu rn s . W h ile I n n e s w a s b e in g a u d ite d , h e ( a n d p e r s o n s h o ld in g h isA def endant who be lieves in g ood faith that he ha s no duty to pay taxes lacks the 3 requisite criminal intent for tax evasion, no matter how unre asonablethe belief , beca use the statutory “willfulness” e lement re quires proof of an intentional violation of a known leg al duty . Se eUnite d St ate s v . Ch e e k, 49 8 U .S. 19 2 ( 19 91 ). Th ejur y wa s in str uc te d o n this g oo d f

aith defense. It was also instructed that it could consider the reasona bleness of a

defendant’s belief that he had no duty

to pay income taxes in determiningwhether that belief w as sincerely

held. 6 p o w e ro f a tto rn e y ) w r o te v a r io u s c o rr e s p o n d e n c e to th e I R S q u e s tio n in g its autho ri ty t o i ss ue thi rd-par ty s um m on se s a nd ar gu i ng thatInnes had no du ty t o p ay t a xe s . T he a ge nti n c ha r ge de s c r i be d the s e l e tt e r s a s “ pr o f or m a t a x pr ot e s t or c o rr e s p o n d e n c e . ” Th e a g e n tt e s t i f i e d th a th e ma y h a v e r e s p o n d e d t o s o me c orr e s ponde nc e w i th a f or m l e tt e rs t a t i ng tha tI nne s ’ s a r gum e nt s w e r e f r i vol ous and h ad been un i form l y r ej ec t ed by court s. O ther prot es tl ett er s f rom Innes w er e i g n o red , co n si st en tw i th IR S p o l i cy. Innes t es t i fi ed i n h i s ow n d ef ense attri al . H e s t at ed thatpri or t o 1 99 2 h e had pai d t axes because he tho ug hthe w as re qu i re d t o d o so, bu tthatdu ri ng the t ax y e a r s a ti s s ue , he be c a m e i nvol ve d i n a t a x pr ot e s tgr oup, unde r t ook a di l i ge nt s tu d y o f th e ta x la w s , a n d s in c e r e ly c o n c lu d e d th a t p a y m e n t o f ta x e s w a s o p tio n a l. I n n e s n o w a d m its th a t th is b e lie f w a s e rr o n e o u s , b u t h e m a in ta in e d a t tr ia l th a t it w as si ncer el y hel d – a c on cl usi on w hi ch, i f a cc ept ed by the j ury, w ou l d h ave been a def ense . 3 I I I . I nne s a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tga ve tw o e rr one ous j ury i ns truc t i ons a nd7

e rr e d by f

a i l i ng t o gi ve tw o othe ri ns truc t i ons . W e r e vi e w de novo a n i ns truc t i on w hi c h w a s gi ve n t o de t e r m i ne w he the ri tm i s s t a t e s the l a w orm i s l e a ds the j ury , but if a n in s tru c tio n s ta te s th e la w a c c u r a te ly , a d is tr ic t c o u r t h a s d is c r e tio n to de t e r m i ne i t s pr e c i s e w or di ng. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B r ow ne , 505 F . 3d 1229, 1267 (11t h C i r. 20 07 ) ( ci t at i on s om i tt ed). W hen a di stri ctcourtre j ec t s aprop osed j ury in s tru c tio n , w e r e v ie w its d e c is io n f o ra b u s e o f

d is c r e tio n , a n d w e w ill r e v e r s e o n ly w he r e the pr opos e d i ns truc t i on c orr e c t l y s t a t e d the l a w , the a c tua l c ha r ge di d not co v er th e p ro p o sed i n stru ct i o n , an d th e d efen d an t ’ s ab i l i ty t o p resen th i s d efen se w a s s u b s ta n tia lly im p a ir e d . U n ite d S ta te s v . P a lm a , 5 1 1 F .3 d 1 3 1 1 , 1 3 1 4 - 1 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . B u t w h e r e a d e f e n d a n t c h a lle n g e s th e f

a ilu r e to gi ve , s ua s pont e , a n i ns truc t i on he di d notr e que s t , w e w i l l r e ve r s e onl y w he r e the di stri ctcourt ’ s a l l eged ov er si gh tam ou nt s t o p l ai n err or. F ed. R . C ri m . P . 52 (b); s e e a ls o , e .g ., U n ite d S ta te s v . K n o w le s , 6 6 F .3 d 1 1 4 6 , 1 1 5 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) . T h is s ta n d a r d r e q u ir e s a s h o w in g o f ( i) e rr o rw h ic h is ( ii) p la in a n d ( iii) a f f e c ts s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts ; f

u r th e r , w e w ill n o tic e a n d c o rr e c t s u c h a n e rr o ro n ly w h e r e it s e r io u s ly a f

f e c ts th e f a irn e s s , in te g r ity , o rp u b lic r e p u ta tio n o f ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s . U n ite d S ta te s v . S tr a u b , 5 0 8 F .3 d 1 0 0 3 , 1 0 0 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . T o s h o w a n e f

f e c t o n s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts , a d e f e n d a n t m u s t p r o v e a r e a s o n ab le pr oba bi l i ty of

a di f f e r e ntr e s ul tbutf

orthe f or f e i t e d e rr or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v.The e x istence of a tax deficiency

is an element of tax evasion, 26 U.S.C. § 7201, along 4 with willfulness and an a ffirmative act of evasion or attempted evasion. United States v. Kaiser, 893 F.2d 1300, 1305 ( 11th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). The wor king a ssumptions and computational steps require d by the various methods of 5 indirect proof

aresummarized elsewhere. SeeUnited States v. Har vey, 869 F.2d 1439, 1442 n.5 (11th Cir. 1989) (ne t worth method); United States v. Mar shall, 557 F.2d 527, 529 (5th Cir. 1977) (e xpenditures method) ; United States v. Boulet, 577 F .2d 1165, 1167 (5th Cir. 1978) (bank deposits method). The critical point is that under all threemethods, the g overnment invites the inference that income was f rom taxable source s by

attempting to ne g ate potential non-taxable source s, rather than direc tly

prove a taxable source. O f cour se, dec isions of the fo rm e r F if

th C irc uit rend e re d o n o r p ri or

to S eptember 3 0, 19 81 , a repa rt of thelaw o f t

his Circuit. Bonner v. City

of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 ( 11th Cir. 1981).

8 K ennard, 47 2 F . 3d 85 1, 85 8 (11 th C i r. 20 06 ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed). F i r s t , I nne s a r gue s the c our te rr e d i n f a i l i ng t o i ns truc tthe j ury a boutthe go vernm ent ’ s m etho d o f c al cul at i ng hi s t axabl e i ncom e. A l tho ug h n o such i ns truc t i on w a s r e que s t e d a ttr i a l , I nne s a r gue s tha tU ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a r t e r , 721 F . 2d 15 14 (11t h C i r. 19 84 ) a nd H ol l and v . U ni t ed S t at es , 34 8 U . S . 12 1 (19 54 ), es t abl i sh thati ti s pl ai n err or i n a cr i m i nal t ax ca se for atri al courtt o fai l t o g i ve an i n stru ct i o n ex p l ai n i n g th e g o v ern m en t ’ s m eth o d o f cal cu l at i n g th e t ax d efi ci en cy. 4 T hi s a r gum e nti s unpe r s ua s i ve . C a r t e ra nd H ol l a nd both i nvol ve d i ndi r e c tpr oof of a t a x de f i c i e nc y . S e e C a r t e r , 721 F . 2d a t1538. A l though the r e a r e s e ve r a l m e thods of i ndi r e c tpr oof

– the ba nk de pos i t s m e thod, the c a s h e xpe ndi tur e s m e thod, a nd the ne tw or th m e thod – a f e a tur e c om m on t o a l l of the m i s the pr e s e nc e of n u m ero u s co m p u t at i o n al st ep s an d w o rk i n g assu m p t i o n s b y rev en u e ag en t s. T h u s, 5 i n d i rectm eth o d s o f p ro v i n g a t ax d efi ci en cy are co m p l i cat ed an d l i k el y t o co n fu se9

th e j u ry, p o ssi b l y t o th e d efen d an t ’ s d etri m en t , i f n o tad eq u at el y ex p l ai n ed . N o tso w i th the di re ctm etho d o f proof used here: the go vernm entsi m pl y off er ed di re ct e vi de nc e tha tI nne s r e c e i ve d pa y m e nt s f r om hi s pa t i e nt s a nd c om m i s s i ons f r om the he rb s a l e s , both of

w hi c h a r e t a xabl e s our c e s of i nc om e . T he f

a c ttha tthe go vernm ental so used bank re cords a s proof of t axabl e i ncom e does notconv ert th is in to a b a n kd e p o s its m e th o d c a s e , a s th e g o v e rn m e n t p r o v e d th e p r e c is e o r ig in of the depo si t ed fund s, nam el y, com m i ss i on s a nd fe es for s ervi ce s. C f. U ni t ed S t at es v. P enosi , 45 2 F . 2d 21 7, 21 9 (5t h C i r. 19 71 ). In ot her w ords, the j ury w as nota s ke d t o i nf

e rtha tthe i nc om e w a s f r om a t a xabl e s our c e , be c a us e the g o v ern m en tp resen t ed d i rect , affi rm at i v e ev i d en ce o n th i s p o i n t ; th atm ak es th i s a di r e c tpr oof

c a s e r a the rtha n aba nk de pos i t s c a s e . O nc e the i nc om e s our c e s a nd am ou nt s w er e proved, the go vernm ent ’ s w i tness es m er el y a dd ed and sum m ar i ze d th e f ig u r e s f o rth e ju ry . T h e r e is little p o s s ib ility o f c o n f u s io n h e r e . A c c or di ngl y , w hi l e C a r t e ra nd H ol l a nd e s t abl i s h tha tf a i l ur e t o i ns truc tthe j ury c onc e rni ng the gove rnm e nt ’ s c a l c ul a t i on of t a xabl e i nc om e i s pl a i n e rr ori n a ci rc um st ant i al proo f c as e, w e have never hel d thatsuch an i nstruct i on i s r equi re d at al l i n a di re ctproo f c as e, l etal on e thati ti s pl ai n err or no tt o g i ve on e. A nd gi ven th e i m p o r t a n td i f

f e r e n c e s b e twe e n d i r e c ta n d i n d i r e c tp r o o f o f a t a x d e f i c i e n c y , we w i l l no text end C art erand H ol l and t o requi re a di stri ctcourtt o sua spon t e i nstruct10

a j ury on t he go vernm ent ’ s c om pu t at i on m etho d i n a t ax evas i on ca se w here the t ax d efi ci en cy i s p ro v en d i rect l y. S ec on d, Innes a rgues thatthe di stri ctcourtpl ai nl y e rr ed by fa i l i ng t o i nstruct th e j u ry su a sp o n t e th atth e affi rm at i v e acto f ev asi o n fo r each § 7 2 0 1 co u n tm u st be t i ed t o the t ax ye aror ye ar s a ti ss ue i n thatcoun t . B utthe j ury w as i nstruct ed tha te a c h c ountc onc e rne d a pa r t i c ul a rt a x y e a rora s s e s s m e ntpe r i od, a nd tha tthe af fi rm at i ve ac tfor e ac h cou ntm ustbe i n furthera nce of the evas i on or att em pt ed evas i on . R ea d as aw ho l e, the j ury i nstruct i on s a dequ at el y c on veye d the l aw c onc e rni ng the a f

f i r m a t i ve a c te l e m e nt . M or e ove r , e ve n a s s um i ng the i ns truc t i ons w ere i n erro r o n th i s p o i n t , th ere w as n o effect on In n es’ s su b st an t i al ri g h t s b ecau se of the ove rw he l m i ng e vi de nc e tha tI nne s c om m i tt e d num e r ous a f f i r m a t i ve a c t s of e va s i on w i th r e s pe c tt o e a c h c ount . I nde e d, a ttr i a l I nne s di d notc ont e s tthe gove rnm e nt ’ s e vi de nc e tha the c om m i tt e d the c ha r ge d a c t s of e va s i on, a r gui ng i nst ea d thathe l ac ked cri m i nal i nt ent . T here i s no rea sonabl e probabi l i ty of a d if f e r e n t o u tc o m e h a d th e in s tru c tio n b e e n m o r e s p e c if ic . N e x t, I n n e s c h a lle n g e s th e g o o d f a ith in s tru c tio n g iv e n b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. A s the S up re m e C ou rthas m ade c l ea r, a goo d fai th b el i ef thaton e nee d n otpay t axes negat es w i l l ful ness , even i f the bel i ef i s unrea sonabl e. C heek, 49 8 U . S . at 2 0 3 - 0 4 . H o w e v e r , th e ju ry m a y c o n s id e rth e r e a s o n ab le n e s s o f s u c h a b e lie f

in11

det erm i ni ng w hether i ti s hel d si ncer el y a nd i n g oo d fai th. Id. Innes a rgues that the good f

a i th i ns truc t i on unf

a i r l y f oc us e d the j ury ’ s a tt e nt i on on the re as on abl enes s of hi s bel i ef s, and d i vert ed i t s a tt ent i on fr om the ot her c i r c um s t a nc e s tha t , he a r gue s , e vi nc e hi s good f a i th – s uc h a s hi s pe r s ona l s tudy of th e ta x la w s a n d h is c o rr e s p o n d e n c e w ith th e a g e n ts a u d itin g h im . I n e f f e c t, Innes’ s a rgum enti s thatthe tri al courtvi ol at ed the rul e that“ a def endanti s e nt i t l ed t o a c ha r ge w hi c h pr e c i s e l y a nd s pe c i f i c a l l y , r a the rtha n m e r e l y ge ne r a l l y or a bs tr a c t l y , poi nt s t o the the ory of hi s de f e ns e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M orr i s , 20 F . 3d 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . O ur re vi ew of the w i l l ful ness and g oo d fai th i nstruct i on s c on fi rm s thatthey ar e bot h l egal l y a cc urat e a nd fa i rl y c on vey I nn es ’ s theory of the ca se . T he j ury w as spec i fi ca l l y i nstruct ed thata goo d fai th b el i ef need no tbe re as on abl e t o b e a de f e ns e , a l though r e a s ona bl e ne s s c oul d be a ron w he the ra be l i e f w a s he l d i n good f a i th, a nd tha tthe bur de n of pr ovi ng w i l l f

ul ne s s ne ve rs hi f

t e d f r om the g o v e rn m e n t. M o r e o v e r , th e d is tr ic t ju d g e s p e c if ic a lly in s tru c te d th e ju ry th a t a defe nd ant ’ s per sonal re se ar ch ef fort s c ou l d res ul ti n an u nrea sonabl e butsi ncer e b elief th at h e h ad n o d u ty to p ay tax es . T h u s, th e ju ry w as in stru cted o n In n es ’s pr e c i s e the ory of

the c a s e . N ordo the i ns truc t i ons e rr one ous l y c onve y tha tthe r e a s o n a b le n e s s o f

a b e lie f is th e o n ly c ir c u m s ta n c e b e a r in g o n w h e th e rit w a s h e ld12

i n g oo d fai th; the m ent i on of pers on al re se ar ch ef fort s c on veye d thatother c i r c um s t a nc e s w e r e r e l e va nt . N o e rr orha s be e n s how n. F i nal l y, Innes a rgues thatthe di stri ctcourterre d b y i nstruct i ng the j ury that th e I R S ’s f

a ilu r e to r e s p o n d to h is le g a l q u e s tio n s d id n o t r e lie v e h im o f h is d u ty to p a y ta x e s . O n c e d e lib e r a tio n s b e g a n , th e ju ry m a d e tw o in q u ir ie s o f th e c o u r t: ( i)

“ w ha ti s the I R S ’ s r e s pons i bi l i ty t o a ns w e rl e ga l que s t i ons ? ” a nd ( i i ) “ w oul d the I R S r e s pons e t o i nvi t e a nd a gr e e t o r e s pond t o one t a xpa y e r ’ s l e ga l que s t i ons but no tanot her l egal qu es t i on be prej ud i ci al t o thatparty? ” T he di stri ctcourtcl ar i fi ed t o the j ury ( i ) tha tthe I R S m a y r e s pond t o t a xpa y e ri nqui r i e s , buti t s f a i l ur e t o do s o doe s nota bs ol ve the t a xpa y e rof r e s pons i bi l i ty f

orpa y i ng t a xe s , a nd ( i i ) tha tthe q u e s tio n s I n n e s p o s e d to th e I R S w e r e r e le v a n t o n ly to w illf u ln e s s . In n es arg u es th atth ese resp o n ses are co rrectb u tm i sl ead i n g . T h i s i s b ecau se Innes t es t i fi ed thathe bel i eved thatthe IR S ’ s r ef usal t o answ erhi s i nq ui ri es de m ons tr a t e d tha tthe a ge nt s i m pl i c i t l y e ndor s e d hi s be l i e f s – he nc e ne ga t i ng w i l l ful ness . Innes a rgues thatthe di stri ctcourt ’ s r es po nse t o the fi rs tqu es t i on m ay ha ve c onf

us e d the j ury , l e a di ng i tt o di s r e ga r d a s i rr e l e va nthi s t e s t i m ony tha the tho ug htthe IR S i m pl i ci t l y a gree d w i th the po si t i on s i n h i s l ett er s. B uteven a s s um i ng the r e w a s pot e nt i a l f orc onf us i on f r om the di s tr i c tj udge ’ s r e s pons e t o the fi rs tqu es t i on , w e bel i eve hi s s ec on d res po nse a dequ at el y c l ar i fi ed thatthe j ury13

c o u ld c o n s id e rI n n e s ’s c o rr e s p o n d e n c e w ith th e I R S , a n d its f a ilu r e to r e s p o n d , in det erm i ni ng i f I nn es ac t ed w i l l ful l y. W e di sc ern n o revers i bl e e rr or here. In su m , n o i n stru ct i o n al erro r o ccu rred . T h e j u d g m en ti s AF F I RME D.