Opinion ID: 484731
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Tax Protester

Text: 6 Bergman contends that he was prejudiced at trial because the Government continuously referred to him as a tax protester. He argues that the references were prejudicial because they associated him with a conspiratorial group of lawbreakers and deprived him of presenting a willfulness defense. We disagree. 7 The term tax protester accurately characterizes Bergman's activities. His objections to filing tax returns, based principally on the Fifth Amendment, have been rejected repeatedly by this court. United States v. Malquist, 791 F.2d 1399, 1402 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 445, 93 L.Ed.2d 394 (1986); United States v. Smith, 735 F.2d 1196, 1197 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1076, 105 S.Ct. 574, 83 L.Ed.2d 514 (1984); United States v. Carlson, 617 F.2d 518, 522-23 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1010, 101 S.Ct. 564, 66 L.Ed.2d 468 (1980). References to Bergman's tax protest activities were also probative of his willfulness in violating the tax laws. Carlson, 617 F.2d at 523-24; see also United States v. Booher, 641 F.2d 218, 221 (5th Cir.1981). Consequently, we agree with other courts that have found the term tax protester a permissible shorthand reference to such activities. See, e.g., United States v. Turano, 802 F.2d 10, 12 (1st Cir.1986).