Opinion ID: 613010
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Temporal Scope of Question 76

Text: At trial, the government's position was that Question 76 required a Form 990 filer to disclose any previously unreported activity in which the filing organization had ever engaged, irrespective of whether that activity had taken place during the year that was the subject of its tax filing. Mubayyid argues that the question is reasonably understood to require reporting only of activities occurring during the subject tax year. He asserts that common sense argues that if one is filing a 1999 tax form the questions pertain to 1999. Mubayyid's claim of fundamental ambiguity with respect to the temporal scope of Question 76 need not detain us. A question is not fundamentally ambiguous if a reasonable jury, given the language of the question to the defendant and the context in which it was asked, could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew that the answer he gave was false. United States v. Boskic, 545 F.3d 69, 90 (1st Cir.2008); see also Richardson, 421 F.3d at 33 (In determining whether a statement made in response to an ambiguous question could be said to be false, `the context of the question and answer becomes critically important.' (quoting United States v. Farmer, 137 F.3d 1265, 1269 (10th Cir.1998))). Even when the temporal scope of the question is viewed as Mubayyid claims to have understood it, the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence presented at trial. Specifically, as detailed below, the record supports a finding that Mubayyid answered Question 76 falsely by failing to disclose three distinct activities: the publication of the Al-Hussam newsletter in 1997; the operation of Care's website in 1999 and 2000; and, in all three years, an orphan sponsorship program that targeted the families of martyred mujahideen. [34]