Opinion ID: 2679626
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to File Quarterly Payroll Taxes

Text: Mr. Houser challenges the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to Counts Two through Nine, which charged him with payroll tax fraud, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7202. In evaluating Mr. Houser’s sufficiency claim, we inquire whether “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Mintmire, 507 F.3d 1273, 1289 (11th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of supporting the verdict. Id. Section 7202 of Title 26 of the United States Code provides: Any person required under this title to collect, account for, and pay over any tax imposed by this title who willfully fails to collect or truthfully account for and pay over such tax shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution. Here, the Government alleged, and the district court found, that Mr. Houser willfully failed to pay payroll taxes for his homes during various quarters of 2004 and 2005. With respect to these counts, Mr. Houser admits that he failed to satisfy his 61 (...continued) Cir. 1988). 33 Case: 12-14302 Date Filed: 06/19/2014 Page: 34 of 40 tax liability for the quarters at issue. He maintains, however, that “the Government failed to establish the critical element of ‘willfulness.’”62 He correctly observes that “the term ‘willfully’ as used in the Internal Revenue statutes ‘generally connotes a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty.’”63 He contends that his “frequent visits to the Revenue Officer, earnest representations of both problems and progress--made to a revenue official accusing him of fraud--and large remedial payments” belie the district court’s conclusion that his conduct in failing to turn over payroll taxes to the IRS was willful.64 We cannot accept this argument. Although Mr. Houser made frequent visits to Officer Justice, the evidence reveals that those visits were an effort to stave off further investigation and prosecution, as opposed to an effort to correct an innocent mistake. First, there is no question that Mr. Houser understood both his responsibility to pay payroll taxes and the consequences for failure to do so65: Mr. Houser only regained control of his nursing homes after waiting out a ten-year tax lien placed on the 62 Appellant’s Br. 47. 63 Id. (quoting United States v. Pomponio, 429 U.S. 10, 12, 97 S. Ct. 22, 23, 50 L. Ed. 2d