Opinion ID: 1444814
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jury Instruction on IRS Publications

Text: At trial, IRS Agent Janet Cunningham testified about how a taxpayer can properly claim the deductions seen repeatedly on the returns involved in the indictment. The government also introduced various IRS publications into evidence. During Cunningham's testimony, the court gave a limiting instruction to make it clear that a violation of IRS rules or regulations is insufficient to establish criminal conduct. At the conclusion of the trial, Goosby requested the following jury instruction regarding the evidence on IRS rules, regulations, and publications: The violations by the defendant, Gregory D. Goosby, of the rules, regulations, or directives set out in the publications of the Internal Revenue Service are not evidence or proof that the defendant committed the criminal acts alleged in the indictment. The defendant is not on trial for any acts or crimes not alleged in the indictment. However, the district court agreed with the government that the IRS publications could be considered as some evidence that the defendant violated § 7206. The court ultimately gave an instruction similar to the one requested by Goosby, except it included the following sentence:  You may consider them in deciding whether or not the crimes were committed, but violation of the IRS rules and regulations alone is insufficient. (emphasis added). Goosby asserts that the instruction given by the district court was an incorrect statement of the law. Because Goosby did not object to the instruction, we review the refusal to give his requested instruction for plain error. United States v. Blood, 435 F.3d 612, 625 (6th Cir.2006). Even if an error occurred here, there is no basis to find that its adverse impact seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings, United States v. Koeberlein, 161 F.3d 946, 949 (6th Cir.1998), particularly where the district court's instruction emphasized that a violation of the IRS rules and regulations would not establish a criminal violation. Therefore, the district court did not commit plain error.