Opinion ID: 585638
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: $200,000 Check

Text: 31 The instructions given concerning the $200,000 were an appropriate formulation of the good faith belief defense as articulated in Cheek v. United States. Unlike Mr. Cheek, Fuentes did not claim a generalized belief that the income tax laws are unconstitutional and therefore any income was nontaxable. Rather, Fuentes claimed belief in the nontaxability of the $200,000 check based on a specific provision in the tax laws exempting payments for personal injury. He testified at trial that he believed the $200,000 check was nontaxable because it was compensation for emotional distress injuries. The given instructions adequately covered the defense theory, which was based on this specific reasoning. Moreover, in evaluating the honesty of Fuentes' belief, the jury was correctly directed to the reasons Fuentes proffered for his belief. We find no error in this regard. 32 Fuentes next contends that because the instruction referred only to personal injury or sickness it gave insufficient guidance to the jury that a settlement for emotional distress would be nontaxable. The relevant question for purposes of determining criminal liability, however, is not whether emotional distress settlements are included in this category of nontaxable income, but rather whether Fuentes honestly believed that they were. The court instructed that jury that even a belief that is incorrect or wrong, if honest, would absolve Fuentes of criminal liability. Fuentes testified that he believed that there was no difference in the taxability of damages for physical injury and for mental distress. Therefore, because the legal definition of personal injury or sickness was peripheral to the question of Fuentes' good faith belief, the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to define it for the jury.