United States v. Rampton
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 15290
10th Cir.2014Background
- April Rampton obtained and used IRS 1099-OID forms to report that substantial amounts had been withheld on her behalf, falsely claiming $227,325 in withheld taxes and filing an amended 2007 return that led to an IRS refund check of $228,967.28.
- She admitted preparing the 1099-OID forms herself, listing real lenders as payers and the amounts she owed as OID income and withholding, though no such withholding occurred.
- After receiving her refund, Rampton assisted others in using the same 1099-OID method to obtain large refunds and charged for that assistance; several recipients received large checks.
- An IRS agent warned one of her acquaintances in January 2009 that the filings were frivolous; Rampton continued to help file nine more returns thereafter.
- Rampton was indicted on multiple counts under 18 U.S.C. § 287 and § 2 for making and presenting false claims for tax refunds; the jury convicted her on nine counts covering filings after January 15, 2009.
- At trial she sought an entrapment-by-estoppel jury instruction, arguing that receipt of the IRS refund check amounted to an official affirmation of legality; the district court refused and the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Rampton's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rampton was entitled to an entrapment-by-estoppel instruction | Receipt of an IRS refund check amounted to active misleading by a government agent validating legality; therefore instruction required | No government statement affirmatively declared the conduct legal; reliance was unreasonable because the filings contained false information | Not entitled to instruction; conviction affirmed |
| Was Rampton's reliance on the refund reasonable | Argued a reasonable person could not know the IRS might issue checks without thorough vetting; refund validated her belief | Reasonableness fails because she provided false OID information and admitted the lie, so payment does not imply legality | Reliance was unreasonable; estoppel defense fails |
| Does Cheek (good-faith mistake of law) require an instruction here | Claim that estoppel defense was corollary to Cheek-based good-faith defense | No adequate briefing or separate legal theory presented beyond estoppel request | Court declines to consider undeveloped Cheek argument |
| Standard for when entrapment-by-estoppel applies | (Implicit) that government acts can estop prosecution when official misleading is relied upon reasonably | Entitlement requires active misleading by an agent responsible for law plus reasonable actual reliance | Court reiterates two-part test and denies instruction in this record |
Key Cases Cited
- Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (good-faith belief about tax law not a defense unless objectively reasonable)
- United States v. Hardridge, 379 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2004) (articulating two-part entrapment-by-estoppel test)
- United States v. Bader, 678 F.3d 858 (10th Cir. 2012) (discussing entrapment-by-estoppel instruction elements)
- United States v. Gutierrez-Gonzalez, 184 F.3d 1160 (10th Cir. 1999) (reliance unreasonable when defendant submitted false information to obtain government imprimatur)
- United States v. Lansing, 424 F.2d 225 (9th Cir. 1970) (reasonableness requirement for estoppel: a person desirous of obeying law must reasonably accept government guidance as true)