United States v. Farr
701 F.3d 1274
10th Cir.2012Background
- Farr was convicted under 26 U.S.C. § 7201 for willfully failing to pay a trust fund recovery penalty assessed after she, as clinic manager, failed to pay quarterly employment taxes.
- This is Farr’s third appeal; prior opinions described the clinic’s use of multiple names and tax IDs to evade IRS collection.
- The indictment charged willful evasion of the trust fund recovery penalty rather than the clinic’s quarterly employment taxes.
- The district court instructed that the trust fund recovery penalty was to be treated as the relevant quarterly tax; Farr appealed this constructive amendment.
- Farr challenged Rule 404(b) evidence, sufficiency of the evidence, indictment charging under the correct statute, and Double Jeopardy; the court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 404(b) evidence relevancy | Evidence was unrelated to charges; 404(b) used for mini trials. | Evidence was relevant to intent and willfulness. | Admissible; relevant to willfulness. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for willfulness and acts | Evidence insufficient for willful evasion. | Evidence showed willful evasion and affirmative acts. | Sufficient evidence for willful evasion and acts. |
| Indictment charged the correct statute | Should have charged § 7202 instead of § 7201. | Discretionary charging; § 7201 properly charged and proven. | Indictment properly charged under § 7201. |
| Double Jeopardy (law of the case) | Jeopardy barred by prior decision. | Law of the case forecloses relitigation. | Affirmed under law-of-the-case doctrine. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Diaz, 679 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2012) (Rule 404(b) admissibility framework; four requirements; abuse of discretion review)
- United States v. Hoskins, 654 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir. 2011) (intent and knowledge(element) in tax evasion context)
- United States v. Bradshaw, 580 F.3d 1129 (10th Cir. 2009) (prosecution discretion to charge under multiple statutes)
- United States v. Robertson, 45 F.3d 1423 (10th Cir. 1995) (discretion in charging decisions; multiple statutes allowed)
- United States v. Chisum, 502 F.3d 1237 (10th Cir. 2007) (elements of tax evasion under § 7201)
- United States v. Ambort, 405 F.3d 1109 (10th Cir. 2005) (de novo review of denial of dismissal; legal standards)
- United States v. Bagby, 696 F.3d 1074 (10th Cir. 2012) (plain-error review for admitted testimony when no objection raised)