United States v. Harriet Jinwright, 683 F.3d 471

Anthony and Harriet Jinwright were former co-pastors of Greater Salem Church in North Carolina.
They were convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States and multiple counts of tax evasion and aiding/abetting the same; Mr. Jinwright faced additional tax evasion and false tax return counts; Mrs. Jinwright faced related convictions and was acquitted on some charges.
IRS Revenue Agent Polk reconstructed their taxable income for 2002-2007, finding an underreporting of over $2.4 million and a tax deficiency around $664,000 for those years.
Evidence showed substantial non-salary compensation, unsubstantiated reimbursements, and gifts from church entities, with a total undeclared income correlated to years 1991-2008.
The district court applied various sentencing enhancements (role in offense, sophisticated means, and abuse of trust) and imposed restitution.
On appeal the Jinwrights challenged willful blindness instructions, tax-treatment instructions about employer payments, cross-examination limits, loss/restitution calculations, and sophisticated means/abuse of trust enhancements; the court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Willful blindness instruction propriety	Jinwrights contend instruction was improper and unsupported by evidence.	Court should have a lighter standard or exclude willful blindness.	Instruction proper; supported by evidence and aligns with Global-Tech standard.
Effect of willful blindness instruction on elements	Instruction could substitute recklessness for knowledge.	Instruction tracked willful blindness standards and preserved burden.	Instruction correctly required knowledge beyond recklessness; not reversible.
Tax treatment of employer-to-employee payments	Testimony that payments were gifts could mislead the jury into non-taxable status.	Jury correctly instructed that employer payments are income and gifts are not controlling.	District court properly instructed; payments were income, gifts excluded by statute, and deductions possible with substantiation.
Cross-examination limits and Cheek defense	Limits prevented presenting good-faith belief defenses about tax obligations.	Limits violated rights or hindered Cheek defense.	Limits were proper; Cheek defense allowed but not violated; cross-examination restrictions were reasonable.
Restitution and MVRA loss calculations	Losses before conviction should be excluded from restitution.	Courts may include pre-conviction and related conduct under conspiracy.	district court properly included pre-conviction losses for restitution under MVRA.

Sansone v. United States, 380 U.S. 343 (1965) (elements of tax evasion include willfulness and a tax deficiency)
Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 131 S. Ct. 2060 (2011) (willful blindness requires high probability and deliberate avoidance)
Pomponio, 429 U.S. 10 (1976) (willfulness defined as intentional violation of a known legal duty)
Comm’r v. Banks, 543 U.S. 426 (2005) (burden of proof and gross income inclusion; gifts exception noted)
Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991) (good faith misunderstanding of tax duties as a defense; confrontation considerations)
U.S. v. Brack, 651 F.3d 388 (2011) (abuse of trust in tax offenses and secondary victims)
Henoud, 81 F.3d 484 (1996) (restitution authority under conspiracy context)
Kontny, 238 F.3d 815 (2001) (sophisticated means requires more than basic concealment)
Jackson, 346 F.3d 22 (2003) (total scheme may be sophisticated even if components are not)