Opinion ID: 504646
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Tax Fraud and Tax Fraud Conspiracy

Text: 32 Rubin contends that he is entitled to acquittal on the charges of causing the filing of false tax returns by Wagner and of conspiracy to cause the filing of false returns because the only evidence on these counts was the testimony of Wagner, which he argues was vague and was substantially impeached by her admission of her other failure to report income. We disagree with both the suggestion that Wagner's testimony was not credible as a matter of law and the contention there was no other evidence to support these counts. 33 Wagner's only conversation with Rubin about the tax treatment of the money she would receive from the QDO occurred either in her job interview or soon after she was hired. Though Wagner testified that she did not recall exactly what Rubin said, she testified that Rubin said [i]n substance that she would do as well as or better than she had in her previous job, giving her to understand that, though her gross salary might be less or no more than her previous gross salary, her take-home pay would increase. She testified that during this conversation, Rubin wrote out some figures for her with reference to the fact that she would be receiving money from the QDO: 34 Q What did he say to you in that connection about the figures on that piece of paper? 35 A He just basically told me that I would be receiving a check from the Democratic Organization. 36 Q Did he say anything about the tax treatment at that point? 37 A At that time? 38 Q Yes. 39 A My understanding was that, that I would not have to report it for taxes, but I don't--I cannot tell you exactly what he said. 40 A witness may properly testify to a conversation either by repeating the words used or by describing the substance of the statements. Thus, although the jury was, of course, free to discredit Wagner's testimony, it was not required to do so merely because she could not remember Rubin's exact words. It was free to believe her testimony that, in substance, Rubin advised her not to disclose the QDO income. In addition, despite the jury's failure to convict Rubin of causing Robles to file false returns, it could have accepted Robles's testimony as revealing part of a pattern providing corroboration that Rubin gave Wagner similar advice. 41 We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the tax convictions.