Taxation – Tax Evasion – Jurisdiction – Reasonable Doubt – Willfulness – Good Faith – Ineffective Counsel – Recalled Expert

Listen to this article

The Government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed tax evasion.

We affirmed defendant’s convictions.

Richard Boggs appealed from his tax evasion convictions. Boggs first argued the district court lacked jurisdiction over him because, as a South Carolina “native,” he is not within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. This claim is “completely without merit and patently frivolous.”

To sustain a conviction under 26 U.S.C. §7201 for tax evasion, the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of a tax deficiency, willfulness, and an affirmative act of evasion or attempted evasion of the tax. A belief, in good faith, that one has complied with the tax laws negates willfulness and is therefore a defense, even if the belief is unreasonable. In other words, the Government must demonstrate that Boggs did not have a subjective belief, however irrational or unreasonable, that he was compliant with tax laws. Boggs asserted he believed that no tax liability accrued with regard to his wages.

We found that the Government presented more than sufficient evidence to show Boggs was aware of his duty to pay taxes on his wages and was aware that the IRS rejected his interpretation of § 83(a). The evidence was sufficient to show willfulness, and the jury was well within its purview to reject Boggs’ argument that he was acting in good faith.

Boggs next asserted his attorney was ineffective for failing to object to the Government’s expert’s testimony regarding the meaning of § 83(a). He also averred that his attorney was ineffective for failing to introduce evidence or make post-trial motions as requested, forcing Boggs to do so himself. Because the record does not conclusively show ineffective assistance, Boggs’ assertions of ineffective assistance were not cognizable on direct appeal.

Finally, Boggs asserted the court erred by permitting the Government’s expert to be recalled in order to testify regarding a book that Boggs stated he relied upon. Because Boggs did not explain why recalling the expert was error, he failed to show an abuse of discretion.

Affirmed.

U.S. v. Boggs (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 003-011-24, 5 pp.) (Per Curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina at Columbia (Cameron McGowan Currie, J.) Richard E. Boggs, appellant Pro Se; John C. Potterfield, Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for appellee. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Unpublished