Tax Cases
Category > Tax Cases
Evidence did not support the money laundering charge where there was no evidence that he committed insurance fraud, and the money was transferred to his family before he filed the false tax returns.Evidence was insufficient to support the money laundering charge under Penal Code section 186.10, subd.(a), because the evidence did not show the funds defendant transferred to his children were the proceeds of insurance fraud. Moreover, the prosecution could not rely on filing false tax returns to show the requisite criminal activity since defendant filed the tax returns after the monetary transfers took place.id: 18790
The existence of a tax deficiency is an element of felony tax evasion under state law.Defendant was convicted of felony income tax evasion under Revenue and Taxation Code section 19706. However, the conviction was reversed because the jury was not instructed that it had to find the existence of a tax deficiency as an element of the offense.id: 19041
Defendant’s intent to evade paying taxes was shown by the substantial amount owed, the FTB’s repeated notifications, and his history of paying taxes.Defendant was charged with failing to timely file state income tax returns for three years pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 19706. He argued there was insufficient evidence of an intent to evade paying taxes to support the charge. However, evidence of his intent to evade paying taxes was shown by the considerable amount of the taxes owed, the Franchise Tax Board’s repeated notifications, and defendant’s prior history of filing the taxes. The prosecution was not required to show evidence of fraud.id: 25083
Supreme Court holds harmless error rule applies if instruction omits element of offense.In an opinion written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, the Supreme Court held that the failure to submit the element of materiality to the jury in a tax fraud case was harmless error. The court recognized that "most constitutional errors can be harmless." <i>Arizona v. Fulminante</i>, 499 U.S. 279, 306 (1991) "If the defendant had counsel and was tried by an impartial adjudicator, there is a strong presumption that any other constitutional errors that may have occurred are subject to harmless-error analysis." <i>Rose v. Clark</i>, 478 U.S. 570, 579 (1986). Indeed, the court has found an error to be "structural," and thus subject to automatic reversal, only in a "very limited class of cases." <i>Johnson v. U.S.</i>, 520 U.S. 461 (1997). Thus, in the present case, the failure to instruct on the materiality element of the tax fraud offense was subject to harmless error analysis, and the error was harmless. Justice Stevens concurred in the judgment and Justices Scalia, Souter and Ginsburg dissented, arguing that the failure to submit every element of the offense to the jury can <i>never</i> be harmless.id: 15136
Evidence of defendant's irregular practices supported the charge that he knew he was underreporting his income for purposes of tax evasion.There was sufficient evidence presented at the preliminary hearing to support the charge of filing false tax returns under Revenue and Taxation Code section 19705, subd.(a)(1). The evidence showed he underreported his income in his tax returns, but there was a question as to whether he knew the returns contained false information. However, circumstantial evidence, including his failure to file tax returns for several years (until he was charged) supported the knowledge element - at least for purposes of surviving the Penal Code section 995 motion to dismiss.id: 18789
Determinate sentence provision provided by 2001 amendment to tax code violation applied retroactively to defendants sentenced in 1998.Defendants were sentenced to prison in 1998 following convictions for filing false tax returns in violation of Revenue and Taxation Code section 19705. At the time of sentencing section 19705 called for a prison term of "not more than three years." The trial court interpreted the language as calling for indeterminate sentencing. In 2001, the provision was changed to read "imprisoned in the state prison." This clarified that the sentence should be interpreted as coming within the Determinate Sentencing Law. Defendants were correct in arguing the amended statute should be retroactively applied to them, presumably because it would reduce their punishment.id: 17690
Misdemeanor offense defined in former Revenue and Taxation Code section 19401, subdivision (a)(1) is an offense necessarily included within the offense defined in section 19405, subdivision (a)(1).Falsity or inaccuracy of the return, statement of other document is an element of the offense prohibited in former Revenue and Taxation Code section 19405, subdivision (a)(1), and the misdemeanor offense, formerly section 19401, subdivision (a) is therefore necessarily included therein. However, the trial court in the instant case was not required to instruct on the lesser offense because there was no substantial evidence that defendant violated that provision. A reasonable jury could not have concluded defendant failed to report the stolen money as income, but did so nonwillfully or in the belief his statements of income were accurate.id: 15595
Canadian request for IRS administrative summons need not be limited to civil tax investigations.Reversing the Ninth Circuit's decision in Stuart v. U.S., 813 F.2d 243 (9th Cir. 1987), the Supreme Court, per Justice Brennan, held that under our treaty with Canada, the IRS must comply with a Canadian request for the issuance of an administrative summons whether or not the Canadian tax investigation is directed toward criminal prosecution under Canadian law. While it is true that the IRS may not use its administrative summons power to obtain information after a case has been referred to the U.S. Justice Department for criminal prosecution, this does not restrict the issuance of an administrative summons pursuant to the treaty as long as the summons meets statutory requirements and is issued in good faith.id: 10842
Willfulness is not an element of failure to file state tax return provision.Defendant was convicted of three counts of misdemeanor failure to file California personal income tax returns in violation of California Revenue and Taxation Code section 19401, subd. (a). He argued conviction of the offense required a finding of willfulness. However, willfulness is not an element of section 19401, subd. (a) and section 19401 is a public offense strict liability statute.id: 10843
About Pat Ford
Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.
Case of the Day
The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.
Exclusion of 18-25 year-olds from the youthful offender provisions of section 3051 did not violate equal protection. Penal Code section 3051 establishes a parole eligibility hearing for juveniles convicted of special circumstance murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Excluding persons 18-25 from the youthful offender parole hearing provision did not violate equal protection principles.id: 27245