U.S. v. Goodyear, 80-5179

Decision Date11 May 1981
Docket NumberNo. 80-5179,80-5179
Citation649 F.2d 226
Parties81-1 USTC P 9423 UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Benjamin F. GOODYEAR and Elizabeth A. Goodyear, Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

James P. Springer, Tax Division, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C. (Stephen G. Jory, U. S. Atty., Elkins, W.Va., M. Carr Ferguson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., Michael L. Paup, James A. Bruton, Tax Division, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., on brief), for appellant.

John L. Henning, Elkins, W.Va. (R. Mike Mullens, Washington, D. C., on brief), for appellees.

Before BRYAN, Senior Circuit Judge, PHILLIPS and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges.

JAMES DICKSON PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge:

The Government appeals from the district court's order granting defendants' postverdict motions for judgments of acquittal because venue was improper in the Northern District of West Virginia. We reverse and remand.

The Goodyears were indicted by a federal grand jury for willfully attempting to evade income taxes in violation of I.R.C. § 7201 1 by making false statements to Internal Revenue Service agents on or about April 30, 1974, in order to conceal unreported taxable income for 1971. At trial, the Government presented evidence that Benjamin and Elizabeth Goodyear had operated a cigarette mail order business in Raleigh, North Carolina in 1971; that they have never filed individual or joint federal income tax returns for 1971; and that they have individual taxes due and owing for 1971 of $13,185.44 and $10,342.39, respectively. 2 I.R.S. agents located the Goodyears in Bunker Hill, West Virginia, and interviewed them there on April 30 and May 1, 1974. The Government introduced evidence that during these interviews, Benjamin Goodyear falsely told the agents that he did not file a 1971 tax return because he had no income for that year and both defendants falsely told the agents that all business receipts had been deposited in the corporate bank accounts. The district court submitted the case to the jury which found both defendants guilty.

After trial, the Goodyears moved for judgments of acquittal, on the grounds inter alia that venue in the Northern District of West Virginia was improper. 3 The district court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings that the Goodyears owed additional taxes for 1971 and made false statements to the I.R.S. agents in 1974. He characterized the case, however, not as the felony of a willful attempt to evade taxes, but as a classic failure to file misdemeanor in violation of I.R.C. § 7203, 26 U.S.C. § 7203. He then concluded that whatever crime defendants had committed as to the 1971 tax year was completed before they made the false statements in West Virginia in 1974, and since those false statements were the link to West Virginia, the district court granted the motions for judgments of acquittal because venue would be improper. He did not address defendants' other contentions or motions.

To obtain a conviction under I.R.C. § 7201, the Government must prove willfulness, a substantial tax deficiency and an affirmative act constituting an attempted evasion of the tax. Sansone v. United States, 380 U.S. 343, 351, 85 S.Ct. 1004, 1010, 13 L.Ed.2d 882 (1965); Spies v. United States, 317 U.S. 492, 63 S.Ct. 364, 87 L.Ed. 418 (1943); United States v. Callanan, 450 F.2d 145, 147 (4th Cir. 1971). Section 7201 contemplates an attempt "in any manner" and, as the Supreme Court has stated, a willful attempt may be inferred from any conduct having the likely effect of misleading or concealing. Spies, 317 U.S. at 499, 63 S.Ct. at 368. Further, the language of I.R.C. § 7201 "is clearly broad enough to include false statements made to Treasury representatives for the purpose of concealing unreported income." United States v. Beacon Brass Co., 344 U.S. 43, 45-46, 73 S.Ct. 77, 78-79, 97 L.Ed. 61 (1952). Where the taxpayer has willfully failed to file a return a misdemeanor under I.R.C. § 7203 a prior, concomitant, or subsequent false statement may lift the lesser offense to the degree of a felony. Prosecutions under section 7201 have been upheld where the defendant made false statements to I.R.S. agents after failing to file a return. See, e. g., United States v. Neel, 547 F.2d 95, 96 (9th Cir. 1976); United States v. Calles, 482 F.2d 1155, 1160 (5th Cir. 1973); United States v. Newman, 468 F.2d 791, 794 (5th Cir. 1972); cf. United States v. Wilkins, 385 F.2d 465, 472 (4th Cir. 1967) ("Subsequent acts of a defendant, such as false explanations which will...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • U.S. v. Brodnik
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
    • 29 Abril 2010
    ...willfulness, a substantial tax deficiency, and an affirmative act constituting an attempted evasion of the tax." United States v. Goodyear, 649 F.2d 226, 227-28 (4th Cir.1981). An affirmative act of evasion is one "the likely effect of which would be to mislead or conceal." Spies v. United ......
  • U.S. v. Klausner
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 27 Marzo 1996
    ...concomitant or subsequent false statement may elevate the § 7203 misdemeanor to the level of a § 7201 felony."); United States v. Goodyear, 649 F.2d 226, 228 (4th Cir.1981) to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonabl......
  • US v. Strawberry
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 10 Julio 1995
    ...vacated on other grounds, 348 U.S. 905, 75 S.Ct. 312, 99 L.Ed. 710 (1955), aff'd on remand, 220 F.2d 681 (1955); United States v. Goodyear, 649 F.2d 226 (4th Cir.1981); United States v. Stofsky, 409 F.Supp. 609 (S.D.N.Y.1973). In Spies, the Supreme Court stated that the affirmative act requ......
  • U.S. v. Daniels
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 27 Octubre 2004
    ...upon to decide the issue directly. See, e.g., United States v. Wilson 118 F.3d 228, 236 (4th Cir.1997) (citing United States v. Goodyear, 649 F.2d 226, 227-28 (4th Cir.1981)); United States v. Mounkes, 204 F.3d 1024, 1028 (10th Cir.2000) (citing United States v. Meek, 998 F.2d 776, 779 (10t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Tax Violations
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 60-3, July 2023
    • 1 Julio 2023
    ...v. Nolen, 472 F.3d 362, 378 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Mikutowicz, 365 F.3d 65, 70 (1st Cir. 2004); United States v. Goodyear, 649 F.2d 226, 227 (4th Cir. 1981). 74. See United States v. Mounkes, 204 F.3d 1024, 1028 (10th Cir. 2000) (f‌inding a substantial def‌iciency where the defen......
  • Tax Violations
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 59-3, July 2022
    • 1 Julio 2022
    ...(requiring the government to prove the “defendant owed substantially more federal income tax than declared”); United States v. Goodyear, 649 F.2d 226, 227 (4th Cir. 1981) (stating that government must prove “a substantial tax def‌iciency” to convict a taxpayer under § 7201). 75. See United ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT