Case Summaries

Tax Law

[12/01] US v. Stierhoff
Conviction and sentence for four counts of income tax evasion are affirmed over claims that the district court failed to: 1) suppress evidence; 2) recognize the government's duty to prove that defendant was a person subject to the tax code; 3) grant judgment of acquittal premised upon evidentiary insufficiency; 4) cabin the use of a summary witness; and 5) limit its sentencing calculus to facts found by the jury.

[12/01] US v. Ligas
In a tax case, summary judgment to the government for unpaid taxes, interest, and penalties is reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss where: 1) the government failed to serve defendant within the time limits prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4, and as a result the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over defendant; and 2) defendant's subsequent motion to extinguish two tax liens was not a request for affirmative relief that waived his prior objection to personal jurisdiction.

[11/26] US v. Marek
Conviction for corruptly endeavoring to obstruct or impede the due administration of the Internal Revenue Code is affirmed where: 1) the inference that defendant knew about the audit was supported by the record; and 2) viewed in the light most favorable to the government, defendant's conviction was supported by sufficient evidence to support a finding that defendant was guilty of the offense.

[11/26] Golden v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
In a matter raised in Tax Court, denial of relief from IRS' proposed collection action is affirmed over claims that: 1) the Tax Court erred in finding that petitioners were precluded by res judicata from challenging the timeliness of the assessment; and 2) the Tax Court erred in denying petitioner innocent-spouse relief under Internal Revenue Code section 6015.

[11/21] US v. Armstrong
Convictions and sentences of multiple defendants for offenses relating to a scheme to dispense certain controlled substances in violation of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) are affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) expert testimony was not required to establish criminal violation of the CSA on the facts of the case; 2) defendant-registered nurse could be held liable for aiding and abetting under the CSA, even though she was not registered to dispense controlled substances; 3) aiding and abetting convictions could not stand on the CSA counts for which the alleged principal had been acquitted; 4) the jury charge was a correct statement of law; 5) evidence of tax evasion as a motive for under-reporting income was properly admitted; 6) there was sufficient evidence to support a money-laundering conviction; and 7) defendant-physician's sentence was reasonable.

More...