Opinion ID: 6496925
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion for Acquittal: Count Three

Text: Count Three charged VanDemark with assisting in the preparation of a false personal return. VanDemark argues that “one of the elements of 26 U.S.C. Section 7206(2) is that a return has to be filed.” (Appellant Br. at 41.) And because the IRS has no record of receiving VanDemark’s 2013 personal return, the argument goes, VanDemark deserves an acquittal. VanDemark’s only support for this argument is an outlier from the Ninth Circuit. In United States v. Dahlstrom, the Ninth Circuit held that “the filing of a return is in fact an element of a section 7206(2) violation.” 713 F.2d 1423, 1429 (9th Cir. 1983). But Dahlstrom does not get VanDemark very far.7 For starters, the case is non-binding in our circuit. And to the extent that it conditions liability on “filing” alone, it contradicts the statute’s plain meaning. Section 7206(2) imposes liability on “[a]ny person who . . . [w]illfully aids or assists in, or procures, counsels, or advises the preparation or presentation” of a fraudulent return. (emphasis added). It’s well-established that “every word . . . is to be given effect” in a statute, and interpretations that cause words “to have no consequence” are best avoided. Delek US Holdings, Inc. v. United States, 32 F.4th 495, 498 (6th Cir. 2022) (quoting Nielsen v. Preap, 139 S. Ct. 954, 969 (2019)). We must give non-redundant meanings to “preparation” and “presentation.” Not least because Congress chose to say, “preparation or presentation,” and not “preparation and presentation.” All this is to say that a defendant is guilty even if he helps prepare, without presenting, the fraudulent return. And it stands to reason that the act of filing the tax return falls under “presentation,” but not “preparation.” In fact, other sister courts have said just that. See United States v. McLain, 646 F.3d 599, 604 (8th Cir. 2011) (“We agree with the district court that liability under section 7206(2) can attach even if a false return is never filed.”); United States v. Borden, 269 F. App’x 903, 905 7Dahlstrom, in turn, relies on two cases: one from the Supreme Court and the other from our circuit. See United States v. Habig, 390 U.S. 222 (1968); Butzman v. United States, 205 F.2d 343 (6th Cir. 1953). At first blush, there is dicta that appears to support VanDemark. See Habig, 390 U.S. at 223 (noting that violations of § 7206(2) are “committed at the time the return is filed”); Butzman, 205 F.2d at 351 (“No crime was committed by [defendant] until the Application was filed.”). But neither of these cases addressed the specific question at hand. Both involved taxpayers who filed the tax return in the end. Habig, 390 U.S. at 222-23; Butzman, 205 F.2d at 346, 351. And in that specific context, the two cases held that the limitations period began at the date of filing. Habig, 390 U.S. at 223; Butzman, 205 F.2d at 351. Indeed, this is precisely the point that the dissent made in Dahlstrom. 713 F.2d at 1431 (Goodwin, J., dissenting). No. 21-3470 United States v. VanDemark Page 10 (11th Cir. 2008) (concluding that “the evidence [was] sufficient to sustain [defendant’s] conviction” because “a person may be convicted . . . under 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2) if that person either prepares or presents the relevant return,” and defendant “[did] not dispute her involvement in the preparation of the return in question”). We said the same thing in United States v. Feaster, 843 F.2d 1392, 1392 (6th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (unpublished table decision) (holding that because the statute’s text “provides that a violation occurs if a person aids, assists, counsels, or advises [in] the preparation or presentation of a fraudulent tax return,” the filing of a tax return is not “a required element of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2)”). And to the extent that the term “preparation” has any meaning (which it must), it encompasses these facts. VanDemark’s tax preparer completed the 2013 personal return. He then tried to file it electronically, but the submission didn’t go through. So he mailed the return instead, and now the IRS says that it has no record of receiving it. In other words, VanDemark, through his tax preparer, completed every step just shy of placing the return in the IRS’s hands. However narrow or broad the scope of “preparation” may be, it surely applies here.8 VanDemark’s conviction for Count Three stands.9