United States v. George Curtis, 781 F.3d 904

George W. Curtis, a long‑time sole‑proprietor lawyer, repeatedly filed federal income tax returns from 1996–2009 showing large unpaid liabilities and entered multiple IRS installment agreements but did not pay taxes for 2007–2009 (the charged years).
The IRS referred Curtis for criminal investigation; he was charged with three misdemeanors for willfully failing to pay income taxes in 2007, 2008, and 2009 under 26 U.S.C. § 7203.
The government sought to introduce Rule 404(b) evidence of Curtis’s broader history of unpaid taxes and, later, his failure to pay payroll taxes for two quarters in 2013; Curtis initially objected to the 2013 payroll tax evidence as improper propensity evidence and unduly prejudicial.
During his testimony, Curtis stated he had fully paid his 2010–2012 tax obligations; the district court ruled that this opened the door and admitted the 2013 payroll tax evidence to rebut implications of recent compliance and Curtis’s claimed good‑faith defense.
The jury convicted on all counts. On appeal Curtis argued (1) erroneous admission of the 2013 payroll tax evidence under Rule 404(b)/Rule 403 and (2) that the court should have instructed the jury that willfulness required proof of a bad motive (he also sought a separate good‑faith instruction, which the court gave).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of 2013 payroll‑tax evidence under Rule 404(b) and Rule 403	Gov: evidence rebutted implication of recent compliance and Curtis opened the door; relevant to intent and good‑faith defense	Curtis: evidence was remote, different in kind (payroll vs. income tax), impermissible propensity evidence, and unduly prejudicial	Court: admission was within district court's discretion because Curtis opened the door and it was relevant to intent/good‑faith; any failure to articulate Rule 403 balancing harmless given overwhelming other evidence
Willfulness jury instruction (whether proof of "bad motive" required)	Curtis: must instruct that willfulness requires bad purpose or evil motive	Gov: willfulness requires voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty; bad motive not required	Court: rejected requirement of bad motive; gave standard willfulness instruction and a separate good‑faith instruction — instructions correct as a whole

Pomponio v. United States, 429 U.S. 10 (1976) ("willfully" means voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty; bad motive not required)
Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991) (willfulness requires law imposed duty, defendant knew duty, and voluntarily/ intentionally violated it)
United States v. Gomez, 763 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 2014) (framework for admissibility of other‑act evidence under Rule 404(b) and required Rule 403 balancing)
United States v. Birkenstock, 823 F.2d 1026 (7th Cir. 1987) (section 7203 requires specific intent/willfulness)
United States v. Schmitt, 770 F.3d 524 (7th Cir. 2014) (defendant may "open the door" to otherwise inadmissible evidence by affirmatively placing an issue at trial)