United States v. Lenamond
Decision Date | 28 December 1982 |
Docket Number | No. CR 3-80-073-R.,CR 3-80-073-R. |
Citation | 553 F. Supp. 852 |
Parties | The UNITED STATES of America v. Lee Eugene LENAMOND. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
David R. Bickel, Asst. U.S. Atty., Dallas, Tex., for plaintiff.
Howard Weinberger, Dallas, Tex., for defendant.
The defendant, Lee Eugene Lenamond, was convicted of income tax evasion for 1973 and 1974. His prosecution was based upon the "bank deposits-cash expenditures" method of proof.1 Lenamond's motion for acquittal presents this question:
Did the government fail to conduct a full and adequate investigation, and did it fail to follow reasonable leads, concerning the value of Lenamond's business inventory—and, consequently, his business deductions for "cost of goods sold"2 — for the years 1973 and 1974?
Because the government did not conduct a full and adequate investigation and did not follow reasonable leads, despite inventory figures which were truly astonishing, the bank deposits method of proof was not sufficient. Therefore, the motion for acquittal is granted and Lenamond's conviction is set aside.
At the conclusion of the government's case, and again at the end of the evidence, the defendant moved for acquittal. Decision on this motion was reserved, and the case was submitted to the jury. Fed.R. Crim.P. 29(b). Following the return of a jury verdict which found the defendant guilty on both counts of tax evasion, the motion for acquittal was timely renewed.
The controlling legal principles concerning the "two traditional indirect methods of proof" used by the government in income tax evasion cases — the net worth analysis and the bank deposits-cash expenditures method — are stated in United States v. Dwoskin, 644 F.2d 418 (5th Cir.1981); United States v. Normile, 587 F.2d 784 (5th Cir.1979); and United States v. Boulet, 577 F.2d 1165 (5th Cir.1978) — and, of course, in Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S.Ct. 127, 99 L.Ed. 150 (1954). As discussed in Dwoskin:
However, in Holland, the Supreme Court warned that the net worth method of proof is "so fraught with danger for the innocent that the courts must closely scrutinize its use" (348 U.S. at 125, 75 S.Ct. at 130). This is equally true with respect to the bank deposits-cash expenditures analysis. Accordingly, in Boulet, the Fifth Circuit emphasized that both methods trigger special protections for the accused and particularly careful scrutiny by the courts.3
(577 F.2d at 1168.)
As part of this duty to conduct "a full and adequate investigation in a bank deposits case," the government may not disregard any "explanations of the defendant reasonably susceptible of being checked." United States v. Boulet, supra 577 F.2d at 1169. As the Supreme Court held in Holland:
"... (348 U.S. at 135-36, 75 S.Ct. at 135) (emphasis added).
However, a full and adequate investigation is required, not a "universal probe." The government is not required "to perform the impossible" (Dwoskin, 644 F.2d at 423) ... or "to bay down rabbit tracks" and "follow a trail that might have led nowhere" (Normile, 587 F.2d at 786) ... or to conduct a "bacteriophobic search for error" (Normile, 587 F.2d at 787).
The government's duty to investigate and to follow leads does apply to omitted or understated deductions — particularly, in this case, to the defendant's inventory and his business deductions for cost of goods sold. This is evident from several cases,4 including United States v. Hall, 650 F.2d 994 (9th Cir.1981), where the Ninth Circuit discussed this very question:
After a careful review of the evidence in this case (including the evidence concerning the government's investigation and the defendant's inventory), and after applying the legal principles just discussed, this Court is convinced that the Holland protections have been violated — and that, consequently, the conviction based upon the bank deposits method of proof must be reversed.
In July of 1975, Randell Choate,5 an IRS field agent, began a civil tax investigation of the defendant Lenamond — who owned and operated an auto supply store in a low income area in Dallas, Texas (Choate, p. 136; defendant's Exhs. 3-18).6 This was the first fraud investigation conducted by Choate (Choate, p. 61).
Over the next 18 months, Choate (sometimes accompanied by other IRS agents) had several meetings7 with the defendant Lenamond and with the CPA representing Lenamond (Robert Driegert), and completed a bank deposits-cash expenditures analysis. Lenamond was very cooperative in the investigation and, with only one exception,8 supplied Choate with all of the information he requested — although admittedly Lenamond had no accounting experience or ability, had never "gotten any advice on how to maintain books and records," and kept "crummy" books (Choate, pp. 119, 122).9
In June of 1976, the investigation was converted to a joint criminal and civil investigation (Choate, p. 82). On October 6, 1976, Choate held the first criminal investigation meeting with Lenamond — although he did not give any notice of this meeting to the CPA representing Lenamond (Choate, pp. 62-63). Lenamond still continued to cooperate.
The investigation concluded in 1976, and it resulted in a recommendation that Lenamond be indicted on income tax evasion charges for 1972, 1973, and 1974. Although Lenamond had no substantial assets or expenditures that pointed toward substantial unreported income — he lived in a $13,000 house in Pleasant Grove; he had no fancy clothes, expensive cars, jewelry, stocks or bonds, hidden bank accounts, etc.; and he owed money on a loan from his father (Choate, pp. 150-53) — he did withhold cash from his daily business receipts for personal living expenses, for payment of salaries, and for occasional...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. v. Khanu
...nontaxable gifts or loans dooms its cash method of proof on the ground of uncertainty. The case cited by Defendant, United States v. Lenamond, 553 F.Supp. 852 (N.D.Tex.1982), is not persuasive. The court in Lenamond held that the government's investigation into alternative explanations was ......
-
Soileau v. Zerangue, Civ. A. No. 81-0855.
... ... Landry Parish, La ... Civ. A. No. 81-0855 ... United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette-Opelousas Division ... December 28, 1982.553 F ... ...