United States v. Renner
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16331
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Renner was convicted by a jury on four counts of tax evasion under 26 U.S.C. § 7201 for 2002–2005, with a sentence of 18 months.
- The superseding indictment alleged underreported income of at least $1.4 million, derived from funds diverted from CCI for personal use and investments.
- CCI marketed stored-value debit cards; Renner converted CCI funds and customer deposits for personal expenditures and investments, with fees comprising about 3% of receipts.
- CCI was a single-member LLC treated as a disregarded entity for tax purposes; the government argued income flowed to Renner personally.
- Renner filed late returns after IRS execution of search warrants (March 1, 2006) showing losses and no other income, while he had used funds for personal expenses.
- At trial, Renner claimed reliance on professionals and good-faith belief; the district court sentenced below the Guidelines after considering professionally-supported arguments and tax-advisory letters.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive amendment or variance | Government argues no amendment or variance; indictment and proof aligned. | Renner contends constructive amendment by trying the case as fraud on customers. | No constructive amendment or variance; instructions and evidence tracked the charged conduct. |
| Taxable income and good faith definitions | Government's instruction properly defined taxable income and allowed for embezzled funds as income. | Renner argues instruction treated customer deposits as income regardless of business purpose. | Instructions fairly submitted issues; good-faith standard adequately explained as subjective. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Government showed diversion of funds and lack of intent to repay, establishing liability and willfulness. | Renner contends funds were debts, and good-faith reliance undermines willfulness. | Sufficient evidence supported willfulness, defalcation, and tax liability; jury credibility determinations preserved. |
| Reasonableness of the sentence | Remand for resentencing due to reliance on rejected good-faith fact. | District court erred by considering rejected jury findings in imposing a lenient sentence. | Sentence within discretionary bounds; no reversible error; district court properly weighed facts incl. professional consultation. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Whirlwind Soldier, 499 F.3d 862 (8th Cir. 2007) (constructive amendment vs. variance framework)
- Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212 (U.S. Supreme Court 1960) (distinguishes constructive amendments from variances)
- United States v. Adams, 604 F.3d 596 (8th Cir. 2010) (variance/amendment distinction applied to indictment)
- Redzic v. United States, 627 F.3d 683 (8th Cir. 2010) (honest-services/defrauding; no constructive amendment)
- Beale v. United States, 574 F.3d 512 (8th Cir. 2009) (elements of tax evasion: willfulness, deficiency, evasion act)
- James v. United States, 366 U.S. 213 (U.S. Supreme Court 1961) (income includes embezzled funds with economic benefit)
- Willis v. United States, 277 F.3d 1026 (8th Cir. 2002) (good-faith defense; subjective standard permitted)
- Bertling v. United States, 611 F.3d 477 (8th Cir. 2010) (non-contradiction principle in sentencing after Booker)
- Hively v. United States, 437 F.3d 752 (8th Cir. 2006) (de novo review for sufficiency of evidence)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. Supreme Court 2007) (reasonableness standard for sentencing within/outside Guidelines)