Opinion ID: 3063071
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Proper Venue

Text: We review a district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss for improper venue de novo. United States v. Stickle, 454 F.3d 1265, 1270 (11th Cir. 2006). “When venue is challenged, this court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and makes all reasonable inferences and credibility choices in favor of the jury verdict.” Id. The government need only prove that venue is proper by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Breitweiser, 357 F.3d 1249, 1253 (11th Cir. 2004). Article III of the U.S. Constitution provides that criminal trials “shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed . . . .” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 3. The Sixth Amendment provides that an accused has the right to be tried “by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed . . . .” U.S. Const. amend. VI. “[W]here the crime charged is a failure to do a legally required act, the place fixed for its performance fixes the situs of the crime.” Johnston v. United States, 351 U.S. 215, 220, 76 S. Ct. 739, 742 (1956). “[T]he commission of a 26 U.S.C. § 7203 violation is considered to occur in the judicial district in which the taxpayer is required to file.” United States v. 10 Quimby, 636 F.2d 86, 90 (5th Cir. Feb. 1981) (per curiam). Section 3237 of Title 18 of the United States Code provides that, where an offense is described in section 7203 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 . . . and prosecution is begun in a judicial district other than the judicial district in which the defendant resides, he may upon motion filed in the district in which the prosecution is begun, elect to be tried in the district in which he was residing at the time the alleged offense was committed 18 U.S.C. § 3237(b). Section 6091 of Title 26 of the United States Code provides: “When not otherwise provided for by this title, the Secretary shall by regulations prescribe the place for the filing of any return, declaration, statement, or other document, or copies thereof, required by this title or by regulations.” 26 U.S.C. § 6091(a). Subsection (b) provides that persons other than corporations shall make a return to the Secretary “(i) in the internal revenue district in which is located the legal residence or principal place of business of the person making the return, or (ii) at a service center serving the internal revenue district referred to in clause (i).” Id. § 6091(b)(1)(A). An exception is provided for “persons who have no legal residence or principal place of business in any internal revenue district,” who shall make a return “at such place as the Secretary may by regulations designate.” Id. § 6091(b)(1)(B)(i). Treasury regulation § 1.6091-2 provides that “income tax 11 returns of individuals . . . shall be filed with any person assigned the responsibility to receive returns at the local Internal Revenue Service office that serves the legal residence or principal place of business of the person required to make the return.” 26 C.F.R. § 1.6091-2(a) (2005). The version of the regulation, current through 1 April 2004, provided that “income tax returns of individuals . . . shall be filed with the district director for the internal revenue district in which is located the legal residence or principal place of business of the person required to make the return.” Id. (2004). On 22 July 1998, Congress passed the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998. Pub. L. No. 105-206, 112 Stat. 685 (1998). The Act directed the Commissioner of the IRS to “develop and implement a plan to reorganize the Internal Revenue Service,” which would, inter alia, “(1) supersede any organization or reorganization of the Internal Revenue Service based on any statute or reorganization plan applicable on the effective date of this section,” “(2) eliminate or substantially modify the existing organization of the Internal Revenue Service which is based on a national, regional, and district structure,” and “(3) establish organizational units serving particular groups of taxpayers with similar needs.” Id. at 689. The Barrys do not dispute that they resided in Lee County, Florida, or that Lee County was in the Middle District of Florida, during the times relevant to their 12 offense. For violations of 26 U.S.C. § 7203, the former Fifth Circuit has held that “the commission of a 26 U.S.C. § 7203 violation is considered to occur in the judicial district in which the taxpayer is required to file.” Quimby, 636 F.2d at 90. Venue was proper in the Middle District of Florida, as that was the location of the Barrys’ residence, which is where they were required to file. See id.; 26 U.S.C. § 6091(b)(1)(A); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3237(b); cf. United States v. Gorman, 393 F.2d 209, 213-14 (7th Cir. 1968) (addressing an argument that the district court lacked venue because “neither the President nor his delegate . . . established any internal revenue districts” under 26 U.S.C. § 7621, and holding that venue was proper in a certain district despite “changes in nomenclature,” because “[t]o hold otherwise would mean that no one could be prosecuted for failure to file tax returns anywhere in the United States,” and “Congress intended no such ludicrous result”).