United States v. Gregory Boyd
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 23160
5th Cir.2014Background
- Gregory P. Boyd filed federal income tax returns for 2004–2006 (filed in Oct. 2007) that falsely reported zero income, though he had received 1099s showing roughly $795,000 of income those years.
- Boyd had previously filed accurate returns for many years; an accountant prepared a 2004 return showing tax due, which Boyd did not file.
- Boyd had read Cracking the Code and testified he believed, based on the book, that only people earning income from the federal government owe federal income tax.
- The IRS warned Boyd his filings were frivolous; he ignored audit scheduling and continued filing similar zero‑income returns after the warnings.
- Boyd was indicted on three counts under 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) for filing false returns; at trial he sought CJA funding for a neuropsychologist, which the district court denied.
- Jury convicted on all counts; district court denied various defense challenges and imposed a within‑Guidelines 33‑month sentence. Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of CJA funds for neuropsychologist | Boyd: needed expert to show mental impairment negated mens rea; funding necessary | Gov: Boyd not indigent and proposed testimony not necessary to negate willfulness | Denial affirmed; district court did not abuse discretion — testimony was irrelevant to 2007 mens rea and no indication of impairment contemporaneous to charged conduct |
| Admission of pre‑ and post‑charged tax returns/transcripts | Boyd: those documents were unfairly prejudicial and irrelevant | Gov: relevant to willfulness and notice (prior compliance, IRS warnings, continued false filings) | Admission affirmed as relevant to knowledge and willfulness; no abuse of discretion |
| Sufficiency of evidence for § 7206(1) convictions | Boyd: lacked specific intent; maintained good‑faith belief that tax law did not apply to him | Gov: evidence of prior filing history, 1099s, accountant’s 2004 return, IRS warnings, and continued false filings show knowledge and willfulness | Convictions upheld; viewed in light most favorable to verdict, rational jury could find elements beyond reasonable doubt |
| Prosecutor/judge remarks and jury‑note handling | Boyd: prosecutor’s personal attacks and judge’s comments prejudiced trial; court’s off‑record note reply to jury was improper | Gov: statements were permissible argument or harmless; scheduling reply was ministerial | No plain error; remarks were not sufficiently prejudicial given strength of evidence and jury was not exposed to off‑record judicial remarks; ministerial jury note reply harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991) (willfulness requires knowing violation of a legal duty)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence: view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
- United States v. Hardin, 437 F.3d 463 (5th Cir. 2006) (abuse‑of‑discretion review for CJA funding/expert appointment requests)
- United States v. Shivers, 788 F.2d 1046 (5th Cir. 1986) (proof of willfulness may include prior accurate filings and IRS warnings)
- United States v. Bishop, 264 F.3d 535 (5th Cir. 2001) (elements required to prove a § 7206(1) false‑return conviction)
- United States v. Simkanin, 420 F.3d 397 (5th Cir. 2005) (willfulness analysis in tax prosecutions)