Opinion ID: 723420
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admission of Tax Returns

Text: 6 We have established a four-part test for admissibility of other acts evidence under Rule 404(b). United States v. Mayans, 17 F.3d 1174, 1181 (9th Cir.1994). However, other acts evidence does not have to meet Rule 404(b) requirements if the evidence is inextricably intertwined with the crime with which the defendant is charged. United States v. Vizcarra-Martinez, 66 F.3d 1006, 1012 (9th Cir.1995); United States v. Williams, 989 F.2d 1061, 1070 (9th Cir.1993); United States v. Soliman, 813 F.2d 277, 279 (9th Cir.1987). Generally, to qualify as inextricably intertwined, the evidence must be evidence that constitutes a part of the transaction that serves as the basis for the criminal charge. Vizcarra-Martinez, 66 F.3d at 1012-13. 7 Here, the falsified tax returns were inextricably intertwined with the charged conduct. The returns were necessary to demonstrate how Dubin was able to benefit from assets that were not reported to the bankruptcy court. They were part of the transactions that served as the basis for the criminal charge. See id. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the tax returns. See United States v. Marashi, 913 F.2d 724, 735 (9th Cir.1990). In addition, any prejudice resulting from the admission of the tax returns was minimized by the court's limiting instruction.