United States v. Charles Irby, Jr.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 25762
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- Irby was convicted after a four-day trial of: (I) attempting to evade or defeat a tax under 26 U.S.C. § 7201; (II–V) four counts of willful failure to file a tax return under § 7203; (VI) attempting to interfere with the administration of internal revenue laws under § 7212(a).
- The district court sentenced Count I to 60 months, Counts II–V to 12 months each, and Count VI to 36 months, with all terms running consecutively for 108 months total; supervised release terms followed for each count.
- Irby appealed, raising issues including the statute of limitations for § 7201 and potential due process concerns from a voir dire remark by the district judge.
- The court granted Irby’s motion to reconsider the reply brief timing but affirmed the district court's rulings.
- The central issue on appeal was whether the six-year statute of limitations for § 7201 offenses accrues from the date the tax return was due or from Irby’s last affirmative act of evasion; the court held accrual from the last evasive act and affirmed the judgment.
- Irby last evaded taxes in 2006 using nominee trusts; indictment was filed in 2011; thus Count I was not time-barred under the “last act of evasion” rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does the six-year § 7201 statute accrue? | Irby argued accrual begins when the tax return was due. | The government contends accrual begins at the last affirmative act of evasion. | Accrual from the last evasive act; Count I not time-barred. |
| Did the district court's voir dire remark deny a fair trial? | Single remark suggested bias against Irby. | Remark was legally correct and isolated; no bias shown. | No due process violation; one isolated remark insufficient. |
| Whether § 7201 counts must be charged within six years depending on accrual rule? | Not explicitly stated beyond the last-act rule. | Last evasive act determines the accrual period. | Count I not time-barred under last-act rule; indictment timely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899 (1997) (due process standard for fair trial)
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (judicial remarks require deep-seated bias to justify reversal)
- United States v. Saenz, 134 F.3d 697 (5th Cir. 1998) (totality of circumstances for judge's intervention)
- United States v. Lance, 853 F.2d 1177 (5th Cir. 1988) (voir dire and bias considerations)
- United States v. Williams, 928 F.2d 145 (6th Cir. 1991) (limitations accrual for § 7201 when no return filed)
- United States v. Dandy, 998 F.2d 1344 (6th Cir. 1993) (accrual from last evasive act)
- United States v. Ferris, 807 F.2d 269 (1st Cir. 1986) (support for last-act accrual rule)