United States v. James A. Simon, 727 F.3d 682

James A. Simon, a CPA and accounting professor, ran JAS Partners and related foreign entities where he had signature authority over foreign accounts.
The Simon Family Trust (Cook Islands) owned 98% of the family interests; Simon and Denise owned 1% each of JAS Partners.
Simon faced four counts of filing false tax returns, four counts of FBAR violations, eleven counts of mail fraud, and four counts of financial aid fraud based on unreported income and FBAR noncompliance.
IRS FBAR filing deadlines (June 30) applied to accounts exceeding $10,000; Simon argued extensions and civil relief by IRS guidance could excuse criminal liability.
The district court ruled against applying certain IRS relief to criminal liability, and trial proceeded with evidentiary rulings limiting defense theory on basis in JAS Partners.
The jury convicted on most counts, leading to this appeal challenging FBAR liability, evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and potential cross-count reversals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Effect of FBAR extensions on criminal liability	Simon argues Treasury/IRS extensions retroactively excused criminal liability.	Government contends extensions were civil relief, not retroactive criminal exculpation.	Extensions did not apply to noncompliant taxpayers like Simon; affirmed on other grounds.
Admissibility of evidence on basis in partnership	Simon sought to prove loans to partnerships affecting his basis and non-taxable distributions.	Court excluded loans-to-partnership evidence as lawyering the issue and confusing the jury.	District court did not abuse discretion; evidence properly restricted; some defense evidence allowed.
Schedule B foreign accounts materiality	Failure to check Schedule B was tied to FBAR-related issues and basis calculations.	Relief for FBAR would also excuse Schedule B, or vice versa; evidence misalignment.	Sufficient basis for conviction; relief not available; Schedule B issue affirmed.
Materiality instruction sufficiency	Instruction did not align with defense theory about basis and distributions.	Pattern instruction correctly defined materiality; defense theory not properly supported.	Pattern instruction proper; no reversible error.
Need for new trial if some counts affirmed	If FBAR counts stand, others affected; potential reversal on some counts would require wider retrial.	Court’s rulings support multiple counts independently.	No basis to reverse remaining counts; overall judgment affirmed.

Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs v. Ball, 826 F.2d 603 (7th Cir. 1987) (deferral to agency interpretation when interpreting regulations)
United States v. Hark, 320 U.S. 531 (S. Ct. 1944) (regulation amendments do not erase pre-amendment crimes)
Farinella v. United States, 558 F.3d 695 (7th Cir. 2009) (court must not let witness explain law; judge explains law to jury)
United States v. Caputo, 517 F.3d 935 (7th Cir. 2008) (trial court exercises responsibility on legal instructions to jury)