Case o' The Week: A Taxing Decision - Jennings and Sophisticated Means
With the Judiciary battered by reduced federal funding, on the eve
of the April 15 filing deadline, in a case submitted without oral argument, will
the government prevail when tax evaders appeal a guideline enhancement?
As sure as death and taxes. United
States v. Jennings, 2013 WL 1317017 (9th
Cir. Apr. 3, 2013), decision available here.
Players: Decision by Judge Clifton, joined by Judges O’Scannlain and
Trott.
Facts: Defendants Jennings and Feuerborn sought
investors for a process that would separate oil from dirt without producing
hazardous waste. Id. at *1. They used
a vendor, “Eco-Logic Environmental Engineering” to develop the technology. Id. Using Jennings’ real name and social
security number, they opened a bank account called, “Ecologic.” Id. Without telling investors, board
members, or accountants, they deposited about $2.5 million in investments into
the Ecologic account and spent on private expenses. Id. That money wasn’t reported to the IRS as expenses. Id. The men were convicted at trial of
conspiracy to defraud the US and tax counts. Id. At sentencing, Probation urged a two-level enhancement under
USSG § 2T1.1 for the defendants’ “sophisticated means.” Id. Over defense objection, the district court imposed that
enhancement, concluding the Ecologic account disguised income as company
expenses. Id.
Issue(s): “Under the Guidelines, a two-level
sentencing enhancement should be imposed when a defendant's offense ‘involved
sophisticated means .’ [U.S.S.G.] § 2T1.1(b)(2) (2010). Application Note 4
explains that the term ‘sophisticated means,’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2),
“means especially complex or especially intricate offense conduct pertaining to
the execution or concealment of an offense. Conduct such as hiding assets or
transactions, or both, through the use of fictitious entities, corporate
shells, or offshore financial accounts ordinarily indicates sophisticated means.”
Id. at cmt. n.4. Defendants argue
that they did not employ means as sophisticated as those listed in the
application note. They argue, for instance, that the enhancement should not
apply because they did not create corporate shells or offshore accounts.” Id. at *2.
Held: “[T]he list
contained in the application note is not exhaustive. We agree with other
circuits that the enhancement properly applies to conduct less sophisticated than
the list articulated in the application note.” Id. at *2. “[T]he fact that the concealment might not have been
total [because it was using Jennings’ real name and social security number] does
not mean that there was no effort at concealment or that the method employed
was not sophisticated. Application of the enhancement does not necessarily turn
on the scheme's likelihood of success in remaining undetected.” Id. at *3. “Defendants’ effort to
disguise funds taken for their own personal use as money paid to a third party vendor
for business expenses through use of a bank account with a deceptive name
constituted a sufficiently complex method of concealment to warrant application
of the sophisticated means enhancement.” Id.
Of Note: The Ninth joins the Second, Seventh,
and Eleventh Circuits in holding that the “sophisticated means” enhancement can
apply to conduct less sophisticated than the examples in the application note. Id. at *2. While that holding isn’t
particularly surprising, applying the enhancement to conduct so – well,
unsophisticated – is. If you can suffer that bump
for opening an account using your real name and social security number, what
conduct is not “sophisticated?”
How to
Use: Jennings
deals with “sophisticated means” in the tax guideline. What about that
enhancement in the fraud guideline, USSG § 2B1.1(b)(10)? The two definitions
are uncomfortably close. Mull Jennings
when running the guideline calculations for tax or “vanilla” fraud cases.
For
Further Reading: Defenders are officially singing the
sequestration blues. Many offices have laid-off staff, others have started
furloughs, all will have furloughs underway by May. For a recent article
describing the devastation, see Federal
Defenders Face Deep Cuts, Delays In Cases, available here.
Image of Uncle Sam from http://www.mhpbooks.com/amazon-tax-holiday/
Steven
Kalar, Federal Public Defender N.D. Cal. FPD. Website at www.ndcalfpd.org
.
Labels: Clifton, Sequestration, Sophisticated Means, Tax, USSG 2T1.1
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home