United States v. Chet West
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13372
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- West, a computer technician, submitted W-4s claiming exemption, routed wages through companies he formed, and did not file or pay federal income tax for 2007–2009; indicted for three counts of tax evasion under 26 U.S.C. § 7201.
- West resigned when IRS levied wages, then subcontracted through his company PFS so payments avoided withholding; he assisted others (including an acquaintance and his son) to receive pay without withholding.
- West authored and sold an e-book and maintained / participated in websites promoting his “non‑taxpayer” views; PSIR documented online advocacy and related activities.
- Pretrial the court granted the government’s motion in limine prohibiting West from arguing tax laws’ unconstitutionality, that he is not subject to U.S. tax law, or that wages are not taxable; West represented himself at trial.
- At trial West mainly cross‑examined government witnesses; the court excluded his attempts to read IRC definitions to the IRS summary witness and excluded his e‑book as evidence.
- Jury convicted on all counts; district court sentenced West to 51 months and three years’ supervised release and imposed two special conditions: (13) ban on creating/maintaining any websites and removal of current sites; (14) ban on using/possessing computers without prior written probation approval and consent to searches. West appealed evidentiary rulings and the two special conditions.
Issues
| Issue | West's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exclusion of IRC provisions and e‑book violated right to present a mistaken‑belief defense / deprived West of a complete defense | Exclusion prevented him from showing a subjective, good‑faith belief that tax laws did not apply to him (negating willfulness) | Limiting evidence avoided confusing the jury and excluded arguments about invalidity of law rather than mistaken belief | Affirmed: court properly excluded materials because West failed to lay foundation showing he relied on those specific provisions; exclusion did not bar legitimate mistaken‑belief evidence and avoided jury confusion |
| Whether Special Condition #13 (ban on creating/maintaining any websites) was permissible under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) and the First Amendment | Condition is overbroad and restricts more liberty than necessary; it chills protected speech and web uses unrelated to tax evasion | Internet use and e‑book sales were commercial promotion of tax evasion; restriction serves deterrence and public protection | Reversed/vacated: condition is overly broad—absolute website ban not narrowly tailored to West’s conduct |
| Whether Special Condition #14 (ban on computer possession/use without prior approval and consent to searches) was permissible | Condition unreasonably restricts liberty and employment (West is a computer technician); sentencing record lacks individualized findings linking computer use to criminal activity | Computer restriction necessary to prevent and monitor use of computers to promote tax evasion and conceal funds | Reversed/vacated: record lacks individualized findings; condition broader than necessary and may unduly impede rehabilitation/employment |
| Standard for admissibility of materials used to support a Cheek mistaken‑belief defense | Defendant entitled to present sources he actually relied upon to show subjective belief | Court may exclude materials that attack law’s validity or are irrelevant to claimed subjective reliance | Clarified: materials showing reliance are admissible if proper foundation established; mere advocacy or post hoc materials not automatically admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991) (willfulness element requires proof defendant knew legal duty; good‑faith misunderstanding can negate willfulness)
- United States v. Giambalvo, 810 F.3d 1086 (8th Cir. 2016) (evidence of sources defendant relied upon admissible only with foundation; agent testimony excluded where not shown to establish actual reliance)
- United States v. Ellefsen, 655 F.3d 769 (8th Cir. 2011) (role of IRS summary witness in tax evasion prosecutions)
- United States v. Powell, 955 F.2d 1206 (9th Cir. 1992) (statutes or case law a defendant claims to have relied on are admissible to disprove willfulness with proper foundation)
- United States v. Davis, 452 F.3d 991 (8th Cir. 2006) (special conditions must be reasonably related to sentencing goals and supported by particularized findings)
- United States v. Crume, 422 F.3d 728 (8th Cir. 2005) (courts should be reluctant to uphold sweeping restrictions on important constitutional rights)
- United States v. Bender, 566 F.3d 748 (8th Cir. 2009) (struck down categorical ban on library entry after computer misuse; emphasizes libraries’ essential role and need for precision in restrictions)
- United States v. Thompson, 653 F.3d 688 (8th Cir. 2011) (special condition overbreadth analysis; restriction unconstitutional if overbreadth is real and substantial in relation to legitimate sweep)