Opinion ID: 24561
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Jury Instruction the District Court Gave

Text: Bickham argues that the District Court’s jury instruction was plainly erroneous. The elements of tax evasion are willfulness, existence of a tax deficiency, and an affirmative act constituting an attempted evasion of the tax. United States v. Townsend, 31 F.3d 262, 266 (5th Cir. 1994). Bickham argues that the instruction the District Court gave failed to advise the jury that it had to find that Bickham committed an affirmative evasive act in order to convict him. The District Court instructed the jury that to convict Bickham, it had to find beyond a reasonable doubt: First, that the defendant owed substantially more tax than he 3 reported on his 1992, 1993, and 1994 income tax returns because he intentionally under reported his adjusted gross income; Second, that when the defendant filed those income tax returns he knew that he owed substantially more taxes to the government than he reported; and Third, that when Bickham filed his 1992, 1993, and 1994 income tax returns, he did so with the purpose of evading payment of taxes to the government. The government correctly argues that because the filing of a false return that understates the taxpayer’s income is an affirmative act of evasion, see, for example, United States v. Skalicky, 615 F.2d 1117, 1120 (5th Cir. 1980) (“The requisite affirmative act can be found in the filing of false returns for each year in the indictment”), the District Court’s instruction sufficiently stated the elements of the offense. II. The Jury Instruction the District Court Did Not Give Bickham contends that the District Court abused its discretion by rejecting two jury instructions he requested. The first read: John Bickham, Sr., has been charged with failing to pay his personal income tax. GCI, Inc., was a viable business entity. The commissions or consulting fees paid to GCI were taxable income of GCI and not John Bickham, Sr. If you find that GCI, and not John Bickham, Sr., should have paid taxes on that income, then you should find John Bickham, Sr., not guilty. Bickham’s second requested instruction advised the jury that if it found that GCI “is organized and established for a purpose that is the equivalent of a business activity . . . , the 4 corporation remains a separate taxable entity. As a separate taxable entity, it would be subject to corporate income tax on its income, and that income would not be included in the owner’s income.” That is, Bickham effectively requested that the District Court instruct the jury to find him not guilty if GCI “is organized and established for a purpose that is the equivalent of a business activity.” We will “not overturn the defendant[’s] conviction on the ground that the district court omitted [his] instruction from its jury charge unless ‘that instruction is legally correct, represents a theory of defense with basis in the record which would lead to acquittal, and . . . that theory is not effectively presented elsewhere in the charge.’” United States v. Duvall, 846 F.2d 442, 447 (5th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted). Bickham’s first proposed instruction has no basis in the record and is not legally correct. It has no basis in the record because – in Bickham’s word’s – GCI was a “paper company,” not a “viable business entity.” The instruction is legally incorrect because the amounts paid to GCI were Bickham’s taxable income, not GCI’s. The second instruction was improper because nothing suggests that GCI was organized or operated for any legitimate business purpose during the years in question.