Opinion ID: 601431
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: multiplicious claim

Text: 71 The defendant contends that the jury was presented with a sixteen-count indictment whereas the indictment should have contained only six counts. 72 Under the first six counts Mr. Thomas is charged with assisting in the preparation of false and fraudulent tax returns for five limited partnerships and one sub-chapter S corporation in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2). In the remaining ten counts Mr. Thomas is charged with violations of the same statute by providing false and fraudulent K-1 forms to individual Wyoming investors so that those investors would use such false forms in the preparation of their individual tax returns. 73 The appellant contends that there was no evidence that he assisted the ten individual Wyoming investors in any manner other than providing them copies of a portion of the return for which he was indicted in the first six counts. He therefore contends that the charges in counts 7-16 are multiplicious and that he is entitled to a new trial. 74 An indictment is multiplicious if it charges a single offense in more than one count. U.S. v. Haddock, 956 F.2d 1534, 1546, cert. denied 113 S.Ct. 88 (1992) (10th Cir.1992). 75 The appellant is wrong in his contention that he is charged with the same criminal conduct in counts 7-16 as that charged in counts 1-6. The first six counts charge him with assisting in the preparation of the false returns on behalf of the five limited partnerships and Wyoming Leasing. The remaining counts charge him separately with willfully aiding in the preparation of ten false individual returns. He is therefore charged with aiding in the preparation and presentation of sixteen separate false tax returns. And the proof established more than that the defendant merely provided copies of the false information from the six limited partnerships and the sub-chapter S corporation returns to the ten individual investors. The proof also shows that the defendant, or persons working under his direction, convinced the individual Wyoming investors to invest their funds in these ventures, often by representing that said investors would receive extensive tax benefits. 76 It is clear that the defendant could have been convicted on the first six counts even if he had not provided the Wyoming investors with the false K-1 forms. It is also true that he could be found guilty of the violations alleged in counts 7-16 even if he had not actually caused the filing of the six false entity returns. See U.S. v. Isrealski, 597 F.2d 2, 24-25 (2nd Cir.1979) There convictions for separate corporate and personal tax evasion were up-held where separate steps were necessary to complete each evasion and it was the intentional causing of false information to be filed in each entity's false tax return that was the criminal act in each instance. 77 This court, in dealing with such a challenge, discussed charges filed under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. It observed we feel the statute aims at the making or using of such 'false writings or documents' and intends the wrong connected with each to be a separate offense. U.S. v. Bettenhausen, 499 F.2d 1223, 1234 (10th Cir.1974). The applicable unit of prosecution is the tax return. U.S. v. Esch, 832 F.2d at 541. Therefore each false tax return that the defendant willfully caused to be filed gave rise to a separate offense. The defendant multiplicious claim is without merit. 78