United States v. Kurt Scheuneman, 712 F.3d 372

Scheuneman was convicted in the Central District of Illinois on three counts of tax evasion under 26 U.S.C. § 7201 and one count of interfering with the administration of the Internal Revenue laws under § 7212(a).
Counts 1 and 2 contained prefatory date language that misdescribed the applicable years, though they stated the 2003 and 2004 tax years in the substantive portions.
He used sham trusts and a reorganized business to understate income from 2000–2005 and did not file 2003–2005 returns, despite IRS warnings.
The IRS investigated after discovering he purchased a sham tax-avoidance system in 1999 and formed Larch Management LLC and two trusts.
The district court instructed jurors that a tax liability and payment were due by April 15 following the relevant years, and the jury convicted on Counts 1–4.
The district court later ordered restitution of $84,382 for losses from 2000–2005; Scheuneman challenged both conviction-related and restitution-related issues on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Counts 1–2 are legally sufficient despite date prefatory language.	Scheuneman argues the dates as stated failed to include all elements.	The government contends the counts still charged the elements of tax evasion.	Counts 1–2 are legally sufficient.
Whether the date discrepancy between indictment and proof amounted to plain error or constructive amendment.	Scheuneman contends a variance violated the indictment.	The government asserts harmless variance or no prejudice.	No reversible plain error; the variance was harmless.
Whether restitution for losses unrelated to the charged offenses was improper.	Scheuneman argues restitution must be tied to the offense conduct.	Restitution may be imposed for losses caused by obstruction under § 7212(a).	Restitution proper and not plain error.

United States v. Fassnacht, 332 F.3d 440 (7th Cir. 2003) (indictment sufficiency and elements of tax evasion)
United States v. McComb, 744 F.2d 555 (7th Cir. 1984) (indictment sufficiency and charging the offense)
United States v. Collins, 685 F.3d 651 (7th Cir. 2012) (elements of tax evasion; variance concerns)
United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991) (indictment sufficiency; notice to plead)
United States v. Leibowitz, 857 F.2d 373 (7th Cir. 1988) (variance harmless when offense shown before indictment period)
United States v. Cina, 699 F.2d 853 (7th Cir. 1983) (variance between indictment and proof; essential elements)
United States v. Eley, 314 F.2d 127 (7th Cir. 1963) (elements of tax evasion)
United States v. Auerbach, 913 F.2d 407 (7th Cir. 1990) (definition of essential elements)
United States v. Longstreet, 567 F.3d 911 (7th Cir. 2009) (variance and plain error standards)
United States v. Pansier, 576 F.3d 726 (7th Cir. 2009) (§ 7212(a) omnibus clause; obstruction)
United States v. Reeves, 752 F.2d 995 (5th Cir. 1985) (obstruction in tax collection context)
United States v. Noel, 581 F.3d 490 (7th Cir. 2009) (plain error standard in restitution challenges)
United States v. Hassebrock, 663 F.3d 906 (7th Cir. 2011) (authority to impose restitution for tax offenses)