United States v. Kottwitz, 614 F.3d 1241

Defendants petitioned for rehearing; panel reaffirmed most aspects of United States v. Kottwitz, but altered stance on accountant-reliance instructions.
Court held the district court was incorrect to deny an accountant-reliance jury instruction on Count One conspiracy as to the IRS defraud charges.
Evidence showed the accountant was hired in mid-1999, could review/reclassify entries, and prepared the tax returns resulting in underpayment.
Defendants argued they relied on the accountant’s advice; the panel found sufficient circumstantial evidence to justify an instruction on reliance.
The suspected transactions primarily followed the accountant’s hiring, supporting potential reliance theories.
Convictions and sentences on Count One were vacated and the case remanded for a new trial with the accountant-reliance instruction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether accountant-reliance instruction was required for Count One	United States argued no reliance needed.	Kottwitz argued for accountant-reliance instruction.	Yes; instruction required; convictions vacated and remanded.
Sufficiency of evidence to support Count One with reliance theory	Evidence supported a conspiracy conviction under various interpretations.	Reliance on accountant not shown directly; circumstantial basis insufficient.	Sufficient evidentiary basis existed to warrant reliance instruction.

United States v. Adkinson, 158 F.3d 1147 (11th Cir. 1998) (act element in Klein conspiracies; acts in furtherance)
United States v. Opdahl, 930 F.2d 1530 (11th Cir. 1991) (burden for accountant-reliance instruction is light)
United States v. Kottwitz, 614 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2010) (rehearing and appellate posture guiding disposition)