United States v. Yurek (Wendy), 925 F.3d 423

Wendy and Daryl Yurek were jointly tried and convicted of tax evasion (26 U.S.C. § 7201) and bankruptcy fraud (18 U.S.C. § 157(1)); Wendy appealed her conviction and sentence.
The government’s case relied on evidence that Wendy (as a partner or officer of related companies) authorized business checks to pay personal expenses, caused a third party to purchase the couple’s loft as a straw purchaser, and omitted these payments from tax returns and the bankruptcy filing.
The jury found affirmative acts (e.g., corporate payments for personal expenses and false/misleading tax filings) and willfulness sufficient to support tax-evasion convictions.
The jury also found the elements of bankruptcy fraud satisfied: scheme to defraud, filing bankruptcy to conceal/execute the scheme, and specific intent to defraud.
At sentencing the court applied U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 (fraud guideline), calculated intended loss based on the amount of tax debt the Yureks sought to discharge, denied a mitigating-role (§ 3B1.2) adjustment after describing Wendy’s role as “central and necessary,” and imposed a 27‑month sentence.
On appeal the Tenth Circuit affirmed the convictions and many sentencing determinations but vacated the sentence and remanded because the district court applied the wrong legal test in denying the mitigating-role adjustment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Wendy Yurek)	Defendant's Argument (Gov't)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for tax evasion	Evidence did not show an affirmative act or willfulness	Evidence (corporate payments, straw purchase, false returns) supports affirmative act and willfulness	Conviction affirmed; evidence sufficient
Sufficiency of evidence for bankruptcy fraud	Bankruptcy filing lacked intent to execute/conceal a scheme; absence of trustee/IRS objection undermines case	Omitted corporate payments and concurrent conduct support scheme, filing to discharge tax debt, and intent	Conviction affirmed; evidence sufficient
Severance / Confrontation Clause	Joinder prejudiced Wendy and prevented confrontation of husband's out-of-court statement	Joint trial proper; statement was nontestimonial coconspirator statement; no actual prejudice shown	Denial of severance/new trial affirmed; Confrontation Clause not violated
Sentencing: applicable guideline, loss, and mitigating-role adjustment	§2T1.1 should apply; intended loss overstated; court misapplied test for §3B1.2	§2B1.1 is the proper analogous guideline; intended loss may be based on amount sought to be discharged; no preservation but no plain prejudice	Court held §2T1.1 not sufficiently analogous so §2B1.1 was proper; intended-loss calculation affirmed; but district court plainly erred by applying wrong test for mitigating-role adjustment — sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing

United States v. Boisseau, 841 F.3d 1122 (10th Cir.) (broad definition of affirmative acts for tax evasion and relation of affirmative acts to willfulness)
Sansone v. United States, 380 U.S. 343 (1965) (filing of a false tax return is a sufficient affirmative act under § 7201)
Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (1993) (preference for joint trials and standards for severance)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (test for multiplicitous charges)
Rosales‑Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018) (ordinary satisfaction of plain‑error fourth prong when guideline calculation error affects sentence)
United States v. Guidry, 199 F.3d 1150 (10th Cir.) (willfulness inference from concealment or covering up income)