Opinion ID: 3033161
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Instruction Regarding Assessment

Text: Farnsworth argues that the District Court abused its discretion by denying his request to instruct the jury that an assessment is a necessary element in a charge of attempted evasion of payment. Farnsworth contends that the District Court improperly decided that an assessment was unnecessary upon considering our opinion in United States v. Farnsworth, 456 F.3d 394 (3d Cir. 2006), an opinion that Farnsworth asserts was “advisory.” (App. Br. at 41, 46.) The Government argues that any error regarding the evasion of payment instruction would have been harmless because the jury expressly found Farnsworth guilty under both evasion of payment and evasion of assessment theories. Moreover, the Government contends, the District Court’s decision to deny Farnsworth’s proposed instruction was proper, and the final instruction presented to the jury was within the Court’s discretion. We agree with the Government. We reject Farnsworth’s argument that our 2006 decision in this matter contained an “advisory” opinion with regard to the elements of attempted evasion of payment. The Government had requested a writ of mandamus to resolve a pre-trial dispute over the evasion of payment jury instruction. Farnsworth, 456 F.3d at 400. This required us to consider whether the District Court’s intended instruction constituted “a clear error of law.” Id. We concluded that our prior discussions on the point were dicta, and that the “weight of authority favors [the] view that an assessment is not required,” but also that 7 lack of clarity in the law precluded us from concluding that the intended instruction constituted “a clear error of law.” Id. at 403. In light of this, the District Court did not err by reconsidering the jury instruction and deciding that an assessment was not required. Moreover, Farnsworth’s argument necessarily fails for lack of prejudice. Attempted evasion under section 7201 includes both “willfully attempting to evade or defeat the assessment of a tax as well as the offense of willfully attempting to evade or defeat the payment of a tax.” Sansone, 380 U.S. at 354. The Government proceeded against Farnsworth on both theories, and the jury expressly found Farnsworth guilty of both attempted evasion of assessment and evasion of payment for each of the tax years at issue. Since Farnsworth would have been found guilty notwithstanding any potential error in the evasion of payment instruction, we are unable to conclude that the District Court’s refusal to use Farnsworth’s proposed instruction was prejudicial.