United States v. Thomas
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2994
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Thomas, a wealthy chiropractor, ceased paying taxes starting in 1995 and concealed income through schemes including a Nevada shell corporation.
IRS investigated 1995–2001; Thomas challenged summonses and pursued frivolous legal arguments.
- Indictment returned January 2006 charging six counts of tax evasion for 1995, 1996, 1998–2001; he pled guilty to count six as part of a plea deal.
- District court sentenced him to 24 months and imposed supervised release conditions requiring filing delinquent returns and paying tax arrears.
- Thomas challenged (i) the Guidelines tax-loss calculation including penalties/interest for 1995–1996 and (ii) the supervised-release conditions; the court affirmed the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper tax-loss calculation and BOL under Guidelines | Thomas argues penalties/interest for 1995–1996 should not be included. | Thomas contends only evasion of payment, not assessment, is relevant conduct. | Yes; penalties/interest may be relevant conduct as part of willful evasion of payment; district court correct. |
| Authority and propriety of filing delinquent returns as a supervised-release condition | Filing delinquents is an undue deprivation and lacks deterrent value. | Condition is lawfully related to offense, serves deterrence and rehabilitation. | Affirmed; condition reasonably related and not an abuse of discretion. |
| Treatment of paying taxes vs restitution under supervised release | Payment of taxes is restitution for criminal losses; court lacked authority for years beyond 2001. | Payment obligation is separate from restitution and properly imposed as a release condition. | Affirmed; payment requirement is a valid supervised-release obligation, not restitution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hogan v. United States, 861 F.2d 312 (1st Cir. 1988) (two distinct crimes: evasion of assessment and evasion of payment)
- United States v. McCarty, 475 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2007) (guidelines tax-loss and relevant-conduct principles)
- United States v. Cintrón-Echautegui, 604 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010) (relevant conduct may include uncharged related conduct)
- United States v. McElroy, 587 F.3d 73 (1st Cir. 2009) (state tax losses may be included as relevant conduct)
- United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 919 (8th Cir. 2009) (imposition of restitution vs release conditions bearing on tax payments)
- Hughey v. United States, 495 U.S. 411 (1990) (restitution concept distinguished from supervised-release tax obligations)