Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 7 views

    United States v. Russell, 1st Cir. (1993)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    William Russell owned a business in New Hampshire and failed to declare substantial personal expenses paid by the business as personal income. He also failed to file individual or corporate tax returns. Russell pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States and three counts of income tax evasion. On appeal, Russell argued that the indictment was invalid because the IRS could not assess taxes without a filed return. However, the court affirmed the conviction, finding that a tax deficiency exists if a required return is not filed, no formal assessment is needed for taxes to be due, and Russell was required by law to file a return and pay taxes owed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Russell, 1st Cir. (1993)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views5 pages
    William Russell owned a business in New Hampshire and failed to declare substantial personal expenses paid by the business as personal income. He also failed to file individual or corporate tax returns. Russell pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States and three counts of income tax evasion. On appeal, Russell argued that the indictment was invalid because the IRS could not assess taxes without a filed return. However, the court affirmed the conviction, finding that a tax deficiency exists if a required return is not filed, no formal assessment is needed for taxes to be due, and Russell was required by law to file a return and pay taxes owed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1993-07-20 Precedential Status: Precedential Docket: 91-2186

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    William Russell owned a business in New Hampshire and failed to declare substantial personal expenses paid by the business as personal income. He also failed to file individual or corporate tax returns. Russell pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States and three counts of income tax evasion. On appeal, Russell argued that the indictment was invalid because the IRS could not assess taxes without a filed return. However, the court affirmed the conviction, finding that a tax deficiency exists if a required return is not filed, no formal assessment is needed for taxes to be due, and Russell was required by law to file a return and pay taxes owed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    7 views5 pages

    United States v. Russell, 1st Cir. (1993)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    William Russell owned a business in New Hampshire and failed to declare substantial personal expenses paid by the business as personal income. He also failed to file individual or corporate tax returns. Russell pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States and three counts of income tax evasion. On appeal, Russell argued that the indictment was invalid because the IRS could not assess taxes without a filed return. However, the court affirmed the conviction, finding that a tax deficiency exists if a required return is not filed, no formal assessment is needed for taxes to be due, and Russell was required by law to file a return and pay taxes owed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 5

    USCA1 Opinion

    July 20, 1993


    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
    ___________________
    No. 91-2186

    UNITED STATES,
    Appellee,
    v.
    WILLIAM S. RUSSELL,
    Defendant, Appellant.
    __________________
    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
    [Hon. Shane Devine, U.S. District Judge]
    ___________________
    ___________________
    Before
    Selya, Boudin and Stahl,
    Circuit Judges.
    ______________
    ___________________

    William S. Russell on brief pro se.


    __________________
    Michael L. Paup, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Robert
    ________________
    ______
    E. Lindsay, Alan Hechtkopf and Karen M. Quesnel, Tax Division
    __________
    ______________
    _________________
    Department of Justice, on brief for appellee.
    __________________
    __________________

    Per Curiam.
    __________
    business in

    The appellant, William

    New Hampshire.

    He

    S. Russell, owned a

    and his wife

    took no salary

    from the business, but they used substantial amounts of money


    from corporate
    failed

    accounts

    to

    pay

    their

    personal

    to declare the payments as income, and failed to file

    individual and corporate income tax returns.


    guilty
    States,

    expenses,

    to

    one count

    18

    U.S.C.

    evasion, 26

    U.S.C.

    of

    conspiracy to

    371, and

    three

    Russell pleaded

    defraud

    the United

    counts of

    income tax

    7201, and received a twenty-seven month

    prison sentence.
    Russell, who

    was

    represented

    by

    counsel

    before

    the

    district court

    but appears

    pro se here,
    ______

    challenges neither

    his plea nor his sentence, but argues that the indictment was
    "false and

    fraudulent" because

    the income tax


    income

    by, among

    tax return.

    it charged him

    with evading

    other things, failing

    According

    to file

    an

    to Russell, the indictment is

    therefore contradictory because without a return the Internal


    Revenue

    Service cannot

    make a

    valid assessment there can

    valid assessment,

    be no tax liability,

    without a
    and without

    liability there can be no evasion.


    This
    three

    is incorrect.

    elements:

    deficiency,

    and

    The crime of income tax evasion has

    (1) willfulness,
    (3)

    an

    affirmative

    evasion or attempted evasion


    States, 380 U.S. 343,
    ______

    (2)

    existence
    act

    of the tax.

    351 (1965).

    constituting
    Sansone
    _______

    A tax

    of a

    tax
    an

    v. United
    ______

    deficiency "exists

    -2-

    from the date

    a return is to

    operation

    law when

    of

    be filed and

    the return

    is

    . . . arises

    not filed."

    by

    United
    ______

    States v. Hogan, 861 F.2d 312,


    ______
    _____
    as the

    tax is

    "due

    and owing"

    assessment is necessary.
    Russell's

    315 (1st Cir. 1988).


    in this

    As long

    manner, no

    formal

    equally without

    merit.

    Id.
    ___

    other arguments

    are

    First, he was required by statute to make a return, 26 U.S.C.


    6012, and pay the tax owed.

    26 U.S.C.

    6151.

    requirement that he file

    a return did not violate

    Incrimination

    the

    States
    ______

    Clause of

    v. Sullivan, 274
    ________

    Fifth Amendment.

    U.S. 259, 263-64

    Second, the
    the SelfSee
    ___

    (1927).

    United
    ______
    Finally,

    the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction, 18 U.S.C.


    3231,

    as

    prosecution.

    well

    as "territorial"

    over

    See United States v. Lussier, 929 F.2d


    ___ ______________
    _______

    (1st Cir. 1991) (per curiam).


    Affirmed.
    _________

    jurisdiction

    the

    25, 27

    -3-

    You might also like