Source: https://openjurist.org/991/f2d/450/united-states-v-dykstra
Timestamp: 2018-02-24 12:23:12
Document Index: 277493034

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 7206', '§ 7206', '§ 7212', '§ 7206', '§ 7212', '§ 7212', '§ 7212', '§ 7212', '§ 7212', '§ 7206', '§ 7206', '§ 7206', '§ 7212', '§ 7212', '§ 2', '§ 7212', '§ 2', '§ 7212', '§ 7212', '§ 1503', '§ 7212', '§ 7212', '§ 1503', '§ 7212', '§ 1503', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 7212', '§ 3', '§ 7212', '§ 7212', '§ 3']

991 F2d 450 United States v. Dykstra | OpenJurist
991 F. 2d 450 - United States v. Dykstra
991 F2d 450 United States v. Dykstra
71 A.F.T.R.2d 93-1521, 93-1 USTC P 50,243
Merlyn DYKSTRA, Appellant.
Appellant Merlyn Dykstra was convicted by a jury of one count of willfully filing a false individual income tax return, 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2), three counts of willfully filing false tax documents, 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1), and one count of corruptly endeavoring to obstruct or impede the due administration of the Internal Revenue laws, 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a), and was sentenced to twenty-one months imprisonment. Appellant now asserts numerous challenges to his conviction, including his claim that three instructions were improperly given, that the evidence was insufficient to establish the statutory element of "willfulness" under § 7206(1) or the element of "corruptness" under § 7212(a), and finally that the district court failed to apply the proper sentencing guidelines. We affirm.
On appeal, appellant first argues that Instruction 6, as well as the indictment, impermissibly included actions by him against "non-governmental officials or employees" as conduct violating § 7212(a), when according to the appellant, § 7212(a) applies only to actions taken against officers or employees of the United States. Therefore, he asserts that sending these documents to two individuals who had no connection with the government (Harold DeJager and Neil Bartholomew) were not criminal acts under the statute. Section 7212(a) provides that:
shall be subject to fines or imprisonment. 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a) (emphasis added). Appellant was charged under the second clause of the statute, the so-called "omnibus clause," which prohibits "in any other way corruptly ... obstruct[ing] or imped[ing] ... the due administration" of the tax laws.1
Appellant's challenge to Instruction 6 is without merit. The omnibus clause of § 7212(a) "conspicuously omits the requirement that conduct be directed at 'an officer or employee of the United States government.' " United States v. Popkin, 943 F.2d 1535, 1539 (11th Cir.1991), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 1760, 118 L.Ed.2d 423 (1992). Because appellant was charged under the omnibus provision of the statute, Instruction 6 properly referred to appellant's acts against victims who were not government officials or employees involved in the administration of the Internal Revenue laws.
Appellant was also convicted of willfully filing false tax documents in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1). On appeal he argues that the inclusion of "deliberate ignorance," or "willful blindness," language in Instruction 14, with respect to the willfulness element of § 7206(1), was improper in light of Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 203, 111 S.Ct. 604, 611, 112 L.Ed.2d 617 (1991) ("forbidding the jury to consider evidence that might negate willfulness would raise a serious question under the Sixth Amendment's jury trial provision"). Instruction 14 provided in part, "[t]he element of willfulness is satisfied if the defendant deliberately closed his eyes to what would have otherwise been obvious to him."
Appellant's argument has already been considered and rejected by this court in United States v. Bussey, 942 F.2d 1241, 1249 (8th Cir.1991), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 1936, 118 L.Ed.2d 542 (1992). The Bussey court found the defendant's reliance on Cheek to challenge a willful blindness instruction was "seriously misplaced." As the court pointed out, "Cheek did not involve a willful blindness instruction and is therefore irrelevant to Bussey's willful blindness issue on appeal."
Appellant again relies on the passage from Cheek that provides, "it is not contrary to common sense, let alone impossible, for a defendant to be ignorant of his duty based on an irrational belief that he has no duty." Cheek, supra, 498 U.S. at 203, 111 S.Ct. at 611. Appellant contends that Cheek stands for the proposition that a personal belief, whether rational or irrational, must be considered by the jury as part of a good faith defense. He contends that Instruction 15, in contravention of Cheek, directs the jury to disregard his subjective beliefs.
Cheek's holding, however, has two separate components. First, the Court held that where "there is no claim that the provision at issue is invalid," the standard is whether the taxpayer had a good-faith belief he had no duty under the tax laws. Id. 498 U.S. at 201-04, 111 S.Ct. at 610-11. Under these circumstances, the taxpayer's subjective beliefs regarding his "ignorance of the law" or his "misunderstanding of the law" is a question for the jury. Id. 498 U.S. at 203, 111 S.Ct. at 611. However, the Court also held,
Id. 498 U.S. at 205-06, 111 S.Ct. at 612-13 (footnote omitted). The Court concluded that "a defendant's views about the validity of the tax statutes are irrelevant to the issue of willfulness." Id. 498 U.S. at 206, 111 S.Ct. at 613. Accordingly, Instruction 15 was properly submitted.
Appellant next contends that the government's evidence of "willfulness" with respect to his conviction under 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) (filing false tax documents) and its evidence of "corruptness" with respect to his conviction under 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a) (endeavoring to obstruct the administration of the internal revenue laws) was insufficient to support guilty verdicts. Statutory willfulness, in the context of criminal tax prosecutions, means a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty. Cheek, supra, 498 U.S. at 200, 111 S.Ct. at 610.
The evidence also established that appellant acted corruptly in pursuing the retaliation scheme, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a). This court has defined "corruptly," in part, as "an effort to 'secure an unlawful advantage or benefit,' and, in particular, to secure a financial gain." United States v. Yagow, 953 F.2d 423, 427 (8th Cir.1992). The evidence here adequately demonstrates that appellant acted with the intent to secure an unwarranted financial gain for himself. He admitted that he employed the "redemption program" in order to keep his house from being taken. In addition, he sent applications for monetary rewards to the IRS for reporting alleged tax law violations by each of his victims. Thus, the evidence was more than sufficient for the jury to find that appellant's actions "reflect[ed] an effort to 'secure an unlawful advantage or benefit,' and, in particular, to secure a financial gain." Id.
Next, appellant argues that the district court erred in applying the general obstruction of justice guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2J1.2 (base offense level 12), in sentencing him for violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a). Instead, the appellant argues that U.S.S.G. § 2A2.4 (obstructing or impeding officers, base offense level 6) is most appropriate for a § 7212(a) violation. We disagree.
As this court noted in United States v. Williams, 644 F.2d 696, 699 n. 11 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 841, 102 S.Ct. 150, 70 L.Ed.2d 124 (1981), "[t]he language and structure of § 7212 track part of certain federal obstruction of justice statutes, specifically 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503 and 1505 (1976)." In interpreting § 7212(a), courts have often resorted to the obstruction of justice provision of Title 18. See, e.g., United States v. Mitchell, 985 F.2d 1275, 1278 (4th Cir.1993); United States v. Popkin, supra, 943 F.2d at 1539-40); United States v. Reeves, 752 F.2d 995, 998-1001 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 834, 106 S.Ct. 107, 88 L.Ed.2d 87 (1985).
Similar to 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a), a person is guilty of an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1503 if he, inter alia, "corruptly, or by threats or force ... influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice." Section 1505 contains similar language prohibiting corrupt endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any federal department or agency. A violation of the omnibus clause of § 7212(a) is substantially the same as a violation of these portions of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503 or 1505. Therefore, the district court did not err in applying section 2J1.2 as the most appropriate sentencing guideline.
Finally, the appellant contends that the district court's application of the "official victim" upward adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3A1.2(a) was erroneous. He asserts that the considerations set out in U.S.S.G. § 3A1.2(a) are already part of the elements of proof of an offense under § 7212(a), such that they have been taken into account by the appropriate sentencing guideline and its base offense level. U.S.S.G. § 3A1.2(a) provides a three-level upward adjustment to the base offense level if a victim of an offense was an official victim and "the offense of conviction was motivated by such status." Application Note 3 provides that this adjustment is not to be applied if the offense guideline specifically incorporates this factor.
Contrary to appellant's assertion, the appropriate sentencing guideline for the § 7212(a) violation did not account for the victims' official status. Neither the elements of the offense nor the applicable sentencing guideline incorporated the official status of the victims. Appellant was charged and convicted under the omnibus clause of § 7212(a), which, as discussed earlier, does not require that the prohibited conduct be directed toward a government officer or employee. United States v. Popkin, supra, 943 F.2d at 1539. Thus, the application of the "official victim" adjustment was not precluded. See United States v. Citrowske, 951 F.2d 899, 902 (8th Cir.1991) (application of § 3A1.2(a) appropriate in case involving similar retaliation scheme).
Count 5 of the indictment charged appellant with "corruptly endeavor[ing] to obstruct or impede the due administration of the internal revenue laws" by participating in the retaliation scheme against the "employees of the Internal Revenue Service and others."