United States v. Courtney Johnson
682 F. App'x 118
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Courtney Johnson, a CPA and owner of Johnson & Associates, was convicted by jury of six counts under 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2) for aiding and assisting in preparation of false federal income tax returns.
- Indictments: initial indictment (June 19, 2013), superseding (June 11, 2014), and second superseding after tolling expired (post-Oct. 7, 2014); Johnson had agreed to toll the limitations period 175 days to Oct. 7, 2014.
- Government presented evidence that Johnson prepared and filed falsified returns, diverted client refunds into his accounts, used another preparer’s EFIN after suspension, and fabricated supporting documents during audits.
- At sentencing, disputed issues included the calculation of tax loss (including a $146,523 deduction), attribution of returns prepared by Johnson’s wife, and whether some returns contained harmless errors; District Court adopted the PSR but did not expressly resolve disputed factual issues on the record.
- District Court applied a three-level role enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b) and ordered restitution; Johnson appealed convictions and several sentencing rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of limitations for April 15, 2008 returns | Gov’t timely indicted within tolling period; superseding indictments relate back unless they materially broaden charges | Johnson: second superseding indictment filed after tolling extended expired and materially broadened charges, so counts are time-barred | Counts timely: tolling extended limitations to Oct. 7, 2014; second superseding indictment did not materially broaden the challenged counts, so they relate back and are timely |
| Jury instruction cautioning about accomplice/co-conspirator testimony | Johnson requested cautionary instruction on co-conspirator testimony | Gov’t: taxpayer witnesses were not shown to be accomplices; no request made for this specific instruction at trial (plain error review) | No plain error: record lacks evidence taxpayers were criminally involved; refusal to give instruction was not erroneous |
| Sufficiency of evidence on willfulness | Johnson: lacked willfulness; no personal benefit from false returns | Gov’t: evidence showed intentional falsification, diversion of refunds, fabricated documents, use of another EFIN | Conviction affirmed: viewing evidence favorably to prosecution, a rational juror could find willfulness beyond reasonable doubt |
| Tax-loss calculation at sentencing | Johnson: disputed specific deductions, inclusion of returns by wife, and overstated loss from mistakes; district court failed to resolve disputes on record | Gov’t: court implicitly adopted PSR and resolved disputes | Sentence vacated and remanded: court failed to expressly rule on disputed PSR matters as required by Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(B) and precedents |
| Sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b) | Johnson: enhancement improper absent identification of five participants or functional equivalents | Gov’t: conduct was otherwise extensive justifying enhancement | Not decided on appeal: remand for resentencing allows district court to reconsider enhancement |
| Restitution authority | Johnson: restitution improper for Title 26 offense | Gov’t: restitution could be imposed under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) as supervised-release condition | Restitution vacated: PSR relied on wrong statutory authority (§ 3663). Whether restitution may be imposed under § 3583(d) left to district court on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Midgley, 142 F.3d 174 (3d Cir. 1998) (standard of plenary review for statute-of-limitations interpretation)
- United States v. Karlin, 785 F.2d 90 (3d Cir. 1986) (statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that may be waived)
- Musacchio v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 709 (Sup. Ct. 2016) (limitations defense becomes part of case only if raised below)
- United States v. Oliva, 46 F.3d 320 (3d Cir. 1995) (superseding indictments relate back absent material broadening)
- United States v. Electrodyne Sys. Corp., 147 F.3d 250 (3d Cir. 1998) (Rule 32 requires explicit findings on disputed sentencing facts)
- Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (Sup. Ct. 1991) (definition of willfulness in criminal tax cases)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (Sup. Ct. 1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)