United States v. Richard Williams
683 F. App'x 376
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Richard Williams, owner of Imperial Tax Services (SLR Corp.), was indicted for filing false personal tax returns (2004, 2006, 2007) under 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) and for aiding/assisting in preparing false client returns (2005–2007) under § 7206(2). A superseding indictment added counts; both indictments were sealed for lengthy periods before unsealing.
- IRS investigation showed Imperial disproportionately used Schedule C and claimed earned income credits; 99% of Imperial clients received refunds vs. 71% locally. Bank deposit records and client testimony indicated substantial unreported income and fabricated sole‑proprietorship businesses.
- Williams reported negligible personal income ($1 in 2004, $2 in 2006, $10 in 2007) despite evidence of tens of thousands in deposits and corporate fees flowing through the S corporation.
- Seven former clients testified that Williams listed fictitious businesses, did not explain returns, and sometimes provided copies only after filing. Williams obtained Form 8879 signatures but clients denied directing business entries.
- Williams was convicted on all counts, sentenced to 36 months imprisonment, and ordered to pay $60,594 restitution. He appealed raising: sufficiency of the evidence, statute‑of‑limitations tolling due to sealed indictments, and Sixth Amendment speedy‑trial violation based on delay between sealing and unsealing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Williams) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for §7206(1) (2004 personal return) | Evidence of corporate deposits, S‑corp pass‑through, and agent testimony showed unreported income; jury could infer Williams knew returns were false | Williams argued his return copied the corporate return (reported $1) and was "literal truth," so he believed it to be correct | Affirmed — evidence sufficient; copying known false corporate figures does not negate knowledge that personal return was materially false |
| Sufficiency of evidence for §7206(1) (2006–2007 personal returns) | Bank deposits, client testimony, car loan statement, and Form 1040EZ declaration of income showed material untruths Williams knew about | Williams argued Form 1040EZ does not solicit business income (relying on Borman) so omission not an untrue statement called for by the form | Affirmed — Form 1040EZ contains a declaration about amounts and sources of income; evidence supports that Williams knowingly understated income |
| Sufficiency of evidence for §7206(2) (aiding clients) | Client testimony, similar fictitious business patterns, and evidence Williams prepared returns without client direction supported willfulness | Williams relied on signed Form 8879s and claimed he relied on client verifications; denied willful preparation of false returns | Affirmed — circumstantial and testimonial evidence permitted finding of willfulness in preparing false client returns |
| Statute of limitations tolling for sealed indictments | Williams argued sealing without tolling allowed limitations to run for many counts when unsealed | Government argued Williams waived the defense by not raising it below; Musacchio precludes raising limitations for first time on appeal | Affirmed — defendant failed to present the statute‑of‑limitations defense in district court, so it cannot be raised on appeal |
| Speedy‑trial (Sixth Amendment) re: delay between sealing and unsealing | Williams claimed lengthy sealed‑indictment delay violated his right to speedy trial | Government noted joint continuances and that Williams did not assert right earlier; record silent on reasons for delay | Affirmed — plain‑error review; Barker factors (length, reason, assertion, prejudice) do not support reversal (defendant failed to assert right and showed no prejudice) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Tarwater, 308 F.3d 494 (6th Cir.) (perjury statute §7206 requires falsity and knowledge)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- Musacchio v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 709 (2016) (statute‑of‑limitations defense must be raised by defendant below to be preserved)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (four‑factor speedy‑trial balancing test)
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992) (presumptively prejudicial delay threshold)
- United States v. Rozin, 664 F.3d 1052 (6th Cir. 2012) (willfulness may be established by circumstantial evidence)
- United States v. Goosby, 523 F.3d 632 (6th Cir.) (elements of §7206(2) offense)
- United States v. Tarwater, 308 F.3d 494 (6th Cir.) (materiality and perjury elements on tax returns)