Opinion ID: 803126
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jury instruction for failure to file

Text: [12] The statute that criminalizes the failure to file income taxes, 26 U.S.C. § 7203, states: Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor . . . 26 U.S.C. § 7203 (emphasis added); see United States v. Brodie, 858 F.2d 492, 496 n.3 (9th Cir. 1988), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Morales, 108 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 1997) (“Specific intent or willfulness is an element of a section 7203 violation.”). In Jury Instruction No. 50, the court instructed the jury that a conviction for failure to file income tax returns requires the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. First, the defendant was required by law or regulation to file a tax return concerning his or her income for the calendar year alleged in the indictment; 2. Second, the defendant failed to file such a return at the time required by law; and 3. Third, in failing to file the return the defendant acted willfully for the purpose of evading his or her duty under the tax laws and not as a result of acci- dent or negligence. UNITED STATES v. MEREDITH 7551 (emphasis added). In Jury Instruction No. 55, the court instructed the jury that: For the crime of willful failure to file a tax return, the government is not required to show that a tax is due and owing from the defendant. Nor is the gov- ernment required to prove an intent to evade or defeat any taxes. A person is required to file a return if his or her gross income exceeds the trigger amount for filing for the calendar year at issue, even though the person may be entitled to deductions, credits or offsets to that income so that no tax is due. The term willfully as used herein is defined else- where in these instructions. (emphasis added). In Jury Instruction No. 53, the court instructed the jury that: By law, the payment of income taxes is not volun- tary in the sense of it being optional. A person is required to file a federal income tax return for any calendar year in which he or she has gross income in excess of the minimum filing requirement. The tax laws are valid, constitutional and allow for the direct taxation of income from whatever source derived, including salaries, wages and profits from business. On appeal, Giordano asserts that the three instructions “considered together are contradictory and confusing” because Instruction 50 states that the government must prove that the defendants’ failure to file income tax returns was for the purpose of “evading his or her duty under the tax laws,” while Instruction 55 states that the government need not prove 7552 UNITED STATES v. MEREDITH “the intent to evade or defeat any taxes,” and Instruction 53 discusses the requirement to pay income taxes and file a tax return. [13] The government correctly responds that the court’s instructions reflect the law and are not contradictory. Jury Instruction 55 does not state that the government is not required to prove willfulness. Instead, that instruction states that willfully “is defined elsewhere in these instructions,” and Jury Instruction 52 defines willfully as an act “done voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do something the law forbids; that is to say with a purpose either to disobey or disregard the law.” This definition of willfulness tracks our precedent. See United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980) (“Willfulness requires a specific intent to do something the law forbids; a general intent to commit the proscribed act is not enough.”). [14] Jury Instruction 55 correctly states that the government is not “required to prove an intent to evade or defeat any taxes.” Intent to evade or defeat taxes is merely one possible way to establish willfulness. Any voluntary act committed with the specific intent to disobey or disregard the law qualifies as willfullness. See United States v. Mousavi, 604 F.3d 1084, 1092 (9th Cir. 2010) (“In the context of criminal statutes, the word ‘willful’ generally indicates a requirement of specific intent.”). Moreover, Giordano cites no authority that requires us to reverse a verdict because a jury instruction was “contradictory and confusing.” Accordingly, the district court’s instructions regarding failure to file did not constitute an abuse of discretion.