Opinion ID: 666952
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Accuracy of Requested Instructions

Text: 13 The appellants requested the following instruction on good faith: 14 The general rule in this country is that ignorance of the law or a mistake of law is not a defense to a criminal prosecution. However, because of the passage of numerous tax statutes and regulations, it has sometimes become difficult for the average citizen to know and understand the extent of the duties and obligations imposed by the tax laws. 15 Congress has made specific intent to violate the law an element of the offense of filing a false tax return. This special treatment of criminal tax offenses is due to the complexity of the tax laws. 16 Willfullness [sic] is an element of each of the charges contained in the indictment. The government, as to each count of the indictment, must prove that each of the defendants knew that the law placed a duty on him and that he voluntarily and intentionally violated that duty. 17 In this case, each defendant has asserted that he misunderstood the law and had a good faith belief that he was not violating any provision of the tax laws. 18 The question of whether each defendant knew they were [sic] filing false tax returns and whether each defendant had a good faith belief that he was not violating the tax laws is a question for you, the jury, to decide. 19 Appellant Briggs's Brief, Attach. E (citing Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 111 S.Ct. 604, 112 L.Ed.2d 617 (1991)). Though somewhat argumentative, the appellants' requested instruction was a substantially correct statement of the current law. 7 20 Accuracy in a requested instruction on a theory of defense requires that there be some basis both in law and in the evidence to support the instruction. See Orr, 825 F.2d at 1542; Gold, 743 F.2d at 819. Since a good-faith mistake or belief is a complete defense to the crime of filing a false tax return, Cheek, 498 U.S. at 202, 111 S.Ct. at 610-11, there is a sufficient basis in law to support the appellants' request. In addition, [t]he law is clear that 'the defendant is entitled to have presented instructions relating to a theory of defense for which there is any foundation in the evidence, even though the evidence may be weak, insufficient, inconsistent, or of doubtful credibility. '  United States v. Opdahl, 930 F.2d 1530, 1535 (11th Cir.1991) (quoting United States v. Lively, 803 F.2d 1124, 1126 (11th Cir.1986) (quoting United States v. Young, 464 F.2d 160, 164 (5th Cir.1972))) (emphasis in Lively ). Here there was sufficient evidence to support the appellants' asserted good-faith defense, and the instruction itself was a substantively correct statement of law. 8 2. Adequacy of District Court's Instructions 21 The district court proffered the following instruction, in relevant part: 22 Title 26 of the United States Code, section 7206 makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to willfully make and subscribe any tax return under penalty of perjury with the belief that the return is not true and correct as to every material matter. Now, a defendant can be found guilty of this offense only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 23 First, that the defendant made and subscribed a tax return with the belief that every material matter was not true and correct as charged in the indictment. And, second, that the return contains a written declaration that it was made under penalty of perjury. And, third, that the defendant made and subscribed the return willfully as charged. 24 Now, it is not necessary that the Government be deprived of any tax by reason of the false return, only that the defendant willfully made the return under the belief that the information contained therein was not true and correct. 25