U.S. v. Simkanin

Decision Date05 August 2005
Docket NumberNo. 04-10531.,04-10531.
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Michael SIMKANIN, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Peter Goldberger (argued), Law Office of Peter Goldberger, Admore, PA, Robert G. Bernhoft, The Law Office of Robert G. Bernhoft, Milwaukee, WI, for Simkanin.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Before KING, Chief Judge, DAVIS, Circuit Judge, and ROSENTHAL,* District Judge.

KING, Chief Judge:

Defendant-Appellant Richard Michael Simkanin appeals his conviction for ten counts of willfully failing to collect and pay over employment taxes in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 7202, fifteen counts of knowingly making and presenting false claims for refund of employment taxes in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 287 and 2, and four counts of failing to file federal income tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203. He also appeals his sentence of eighty-four months imprisonment. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM Simkanin's conviction and sentence.

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant-Appellant Richard Simkanin owned Arrow Custom Plastics, Inc. ("Arrow") since its incorporation in 1982. In 1993, Simkanin met with an accountant, Jim Kelly, who advised him that he would need to change Arrow's accounting method and that this change would result in an increase in Arrow's corporate income tax. Simkanin thereafter began to question the federal tax system's applicability to him and its validity in general. On his 1994 and 1995 individual income tax returns, he made notations (i.e., "UCC 1-207") apparently in an attempt to indicate that the returns were filed under protest. He did not file individual tax returns for the years 1996-2001.

With respect to the 1996 and 1997 returns, Simkanin told Kelly that he was not required to file returns because he did not receive any income but rather lived entirely off of his savings. However, this statement was false—Simkanin did in fact receive a salary from Arrow during these years, and his salary was sufficiently high such that Simkanin owed federal income taxes. On Arrow's books, Simkanin's salary was initially identified as "officer salary" and then later as "remuneration," without any reference to Simkanin being the recipient of the funds. During these years, Simkanin also received payment from Arrow for his personal expenses, which were booked as "repair and maintenance."

In 1996, Simkanin surrendered his Texas driver's license, and when stopped by the police while driving, he showed a card styled "British West Indies International Motor Vehicle Qualification Card," which he had acquired from a mail order business in Connecticut. He also mailed to the U.S. Treasury Secretary a statement that he had expatriated himself from the United States and repatriated to the Republic of Texas. He posted the same statement on Arrow's internet website, where he also vowed to ignore the laws of the United States.

In 1997, Simkanin removed his name from Arrow's checking and credit card accounts, replacing his name with the name of Arrow's bookkeeper Dianne Clemonds. Simkanin told Clemonds that he did not want his name to appear on documents requiring his social security number. Simkanin then listed Clemonds as Arrow's president on various legal documents, although he retained complete de facto responsibility for the company's affairs and continued to make all of the decisions regarding finances and taxes.

By May 1999, Simkanin had become involved with an organization called We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education ("WTP"), which promotes the view that, despite common misconceptions, there is actually no law that requires most Americans to pay income taxes or most companies to withhold taxes from employees' paychecks. WTP also espouses the view that the Sixteenth Amendment was fraudulently declared to have been ratified. In accordance with these views, Simkanin told accountant Kelly and others that he was not required to pay taxes and that filing returns was purely voluntary. Kelly advised Simkanin that filing returns was not voluntary and that Simkanin could get into trouble if he did not file. Simkanin rejected this advice, and he began to pressure Arrow's employees to attend seminars sponsored by WTP.

In November 1999, Simkanin told Kelly that Arrow would no longer withhold employment taxes from employees' paychecks. Kelly counseled against this course of action. In response to Simkanin's stated intentions, Clemonds consulted with an attorney. She was advised that she could be personally liable if she went along with Simkanin's plan to stop collecting and paying over taxes. Clemonds therefore resigned from her position at Arrow, and Simkanin returned his name to the Arrow bank accounts as sole signatory. He then stopped Arrow's withholding of federal taxes from the wages paid to its employees.

In January 2000, Simkanin filed with the IRS fifteen claims for tax refunds. He claimed he was owed refunds for taxes paid by Arrow in 1997-99 and also for the taxes collected from, and paid by, Arrow's employees. The IRS denied all of these claims, and Simkanin did not seek further review.

In March 2000, Kelly and Fred Taylor, a named partner in Kelly's accounting firm, went to Simkanin's office to discuss his refusal to withhold and pay federal taxes or file returns. Simkanin reiterated that he had no intention of paying taxes. Taylor advised Simkanin that he could be criminally prosecuted for his actions and, by letter dated March 28, 2000, terminated Simkanin and Arrow as clients.

On March 2, 2001, a full page advertisement by WTP appeared in USA Today. The ad prominently displayed the photographs of five men, including Simkanin. The advertisement stated, inter alia, that Simkanin and the other men pictured had stopped withholding taxes from their workers' paychecks and that they were part of a "growing number of people" who believe that:

1. There is no law that requires workers, as U.S. citizens earning their money from domestic companies, to pay income or employment taxes; nor to have those taxes withheld;

2. The 16th Amendment (the "Income Tax Amendment") was fraudulently declared to be ratified by the Secretary of State in 1913.

The ad concluded with a request for "donations" to WTP.

On March 14, 2001, Simkanin was advised that he was the target of a criminal investigation regarding his failure to file individual income taxes since 1995 and his failure to collect and pay over employment taxes since January 2000. In July 2001, Simkanin was served with a grand jury subpoena that sought the corporate records of "Arrow Custom Plastics, Inc." In response to the subpoena, Simkanin dissolved the corporation and operated Arrow as a sole proprietorship. Despite Simkanin's refusal to produce Arrow's corporate records, the government was able to obtain information about the amount of wages paid to Arrow's employees from the Texas state agency that collected unemployment taxes from Arrow.

On June 19, 2003, an indictment was returned, charging Simkanin with twelve counts of willfully failing to collect and pay over federal income taxes and Federal Insurance Contribution ("FICA") taxes from the total taxable wages of Arrow employees in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7202,1 and fifteen counts of filing false claims for tax refunds in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 287. On August 13, 2003, a superceding indictment was returned, charging Simkanin with the same substantive crimes but stating the applicable law more fully.

On September 3, 2003, the parties filed a plea agreement and a factual resume in which Simkanin pled guilty to four counts of the superceding indictment. However, the plea agreement misstated the maximum penalty to be lower than the actual maximum of five years imprisonment and three years supervised release. The government notified the court that Simkanin had not actually agreed to plead to a count with the maximum penalty of five years incarceration. The court ultimately ordered a deadline for completing a plea agreement, and when the government and Simkanin had not agreed to a new plea agreement by that date, the case went to trial.

Simkanin's first trial began on November 25, 2003. A number of Simkanin's supporters were present outside the courthouse handing out pamphlets on jury nullification. The jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict, and the district court declared a mistrial. One of the jurors subsequently contacted the court's staff and expressed concern about the behavior of Simkanin's supporters and one of the members of the jury. It was later revealed that some of the jurors had been contacted by Simkanin's supporters.

On December 17, 2003, a second superceding indictment was returned, charging Simkanin with the same offenses in the first superceding indictment plus four additional counts of failure to file individual income tax returns. Counts One through Twelve charged Simkanin with willfully failing to collect and pay over federal income taxes and FICA taxes from the total taxable wages of Arrow employees in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7202 (with each count pertaining to a different tax quarter). Counts Thirteen through Twenty-Seven charged Simkanin with knowingly making and presenting fifteen false claims for the payment of refunds of the employer's share of FICA taxes paid by Arrow and of the employees' share of FICA taxes and income taxes collected from Arrow's employees in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 287 and 2. Finally, Counts Twenty-Eight through Thirty-One charged Simkanin with failing to file federal income tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203.

The second trial began on January 5, 2004.2 Simkanin primarily attempted to establish that he did not willfully violate the tax laws because he held a good-faith belief...

To continue reading

Request your trial
100 cases
  • United States v. Brown
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • February 16, 2022
    ...of jurisdiction," because they were relevant to the defendant's remorse and threat to the public on release); United States v. Simkanin, 420 F.3d 397, 417–18 (5th Cir. 2005) (finding no constitutional error where the district court relied on the defendant's "specific beliefs that the tax la......
  • U.S. v. Kay
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • October 24, 2007
    ...48. Id. (internal quotations omitted). 49. United States v. Correa-Ventura, 6 F.3d 1070, 1076 (5th Cir.1993). 50. United States v. Simkanin, 420 F.3d 397, 410 (5th Cir.2005). 51. See, e.g., Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184, 193, 118 S.Ct. 1939, 141 L.Ed.2d 197 (1998) (applying the Court......
  • United States v. DeChristopher
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • September 14, 2012
    ...court may consider a defendant's beliefs if they are “sufficiently related to the issues at sentencing.” United States v. Simkanin, 420 F.3d 397, 417 (5th Cir.2005) (quoting Boyle v. Johnson, 93 F.3d 180, 183–85 (5th Cir.1996)). The Simkanin court held a defendant's belief in the invalidity......
  • United States v. Sertich
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • January 8, 2018
    ...tax law, "a defendant’s good-faith belief that he is acting within the law negates the willfulness element." United States v. Simkanin , 420 F.3d 397, 410 (5th Cir. 2005).Sertich contends that he did not act willfully because he testified that "he held a good faith belief that he did not vi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 books & journal articles
  • Tax violations.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 45 No. 2, March 2008
    • March 22, 2008
    ...116, 119 (8th Cir. 1992) (holding that Cheek was decided based on the complexity of the tax laws). (156.) See United States v. Simkanin, 420 F.3d 397, 410 (5th Cir. 2005) (noting that, although a tax crime defendant's good faith belief that he was acting lawfully negates willfulness, a good......
  • Tax violations.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 43 No. 2, March 2006
    • March 22, 2006
    ...116, 119 (8th Cir. 1992) (holding that Cheek was decided based on the complexity of the tax laws). (153.) See United States v. Simkanin, 420 F.3d 397, 410 (5th Cir. 2005) (noting that although a tax crime defendant's good faith belief that he was acting lawfully negates willfulness, his goo......
  • Tax violations.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 44 No. 2, March 2007
    • March 22, 2007
    ...116, 119 (8th Cir. 1992) (holding that Cheek was decided based on the complexity of the tax laws). (153.) See United States v. Simkanin, 420 F.3d 397, 410 (5th Cir. 2005) (noting that, although a tax crime defendant's good faith belief that he was acting lawfully negates willfulness, a good......
  • Tax violations.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 46 No. 2, March 2009
    • March 22, 2009
    ...116, 119 (8th Cir. 1992) (holding that Cheek was decided based on the complexity of the tax laws). (159.) See United States v. Simkanin, 420 F.3d 397, 410 (5th Cir. 2005) (noting that, although a tax crime defendant's good-faith belief that he was acting lawfully negates willfulness, a good......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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