United States: Reading Tea Leaves: Justice Gorsuch And Criminal Tax Cases

Last Updated: June 13 2017
Article by Jeremy H. Temkin

The legal commentariat seems to have settled on the view that newly confirmed Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch will fill the seat left by the late Justice Antonin Scalia both literally and as a like-minded successor in jurisprudential spirit.1

While Justice Scalia is commonly considered an arch-conservative legal scholar, his commitment to originalism often led him to places one would not expect to find him based on a simple liberal-conservative dichotomy. In particular, Justice Scalia often wound up in unusual majority lineups regarding the rights of criminal defendants.2 For example, he wrote for the court in United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (1993), a 5-4 opinion holding that double jeopardy bars prosecution of conduct for which the defendant has previously been held in contempt of court; Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), which voided the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act as unconstitutionally vague; and United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (2008), another 5-4 opinion that interpreted the term "proceeds" under the money-laundering statute as referring only to net income/profits, and not to gross income.

Will Justice Gorsuch, acolyte of originalism, likewise defy easy assumptions on issues of criminal law? Several of his opinions while on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit suggest that, like Justice Scalia, his views on criminal justice often vary from the "law and order" approach generally associated with judicial conservatives.3 In particular, his decision in United States v. Farr, 536 F.3d 1174 (10th Cir. 2008), if an incomplete record of his thinking, offers a few clues regarding his approach to criminal justice matters while posing some interesting issues for tax prosecutions.

'U.S. v. Farr'

For 15 years Skoshi Thedford Farr served as the general manager of her husband's alternative medicine clinic in Oklahoma City. During that time, the clinic managed to accurately report its quarterly wages paid and federal taxes withheld, but failed to pay the withheld taxes over to the government. After Farr's husband passed away in 1998, the IRS sought to collect the employment taxes owed by the clinic from Farr based on her responsibility as an officer or employee of the clinic. Thus, the IRS invoked 26 U.S.C. §6672 to assess as a civil penalty against Farr an amount equal to the delinquent employment taxes.

When Farr did not pay the penalty, the government pursued criminal tax evasion charges under 26 U.S.C. §7201. The indictment charging Farr, however, went beyond the generic statutory language and specified that she had willfully attempted to evade and defeat the payment of the clinic's quarterly employment tax that was "due and owing by her."

Throughout the ensuing trial, Farr's lawyer argued that she could not be guilty of failing to pay employment taxes because she was not the employer, and that the indictment did not encompass the "trust fund recovery penalty" imposed against Farr. While critical of the government's failure to distinguish between the tax due by the clinic and the penalty that Farr owed, the district court instructed the jury that it could convict on either theory, candidly fretting that it was thereby "pulling the case out of the ditch for the government."

The jury convicted Farr. On appeal, she argued that the government had constructively amended the indictment. Writing for a unanimous panel of the Tenth Circuit, then-Judge Gorsuch threw out the conviction based on the "fatal incongruity" between the indictment's specific reliance on failure to pay employment taxes and the evidence at trial regarding the failure to pay the trust fund penalty. Although the government argued that the difference between the tax and the penalty was merely semantic, Judge Gorsuch invoked a Scalia-like strict interpretation, pointing to controlling circuit law that employment taxes are distinct from any penalty imposed for failure to pay them. Thus, Judge Gorsuch rejected the government's claim that Farr had fair notice of its intent to argue that a conviction could be based on the penalty, concluding that such gamesmanship ran afoul of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

Unfortunately for Farr, her luck ran out there. The panel rejected her argument that there was insufficient evidence to convict her of evading the penalty, the legal hook necessary to bar a new trial under the double jeopardy clause, as well as her claim that the government had not shown an act of evasion. Moreover, Judge Gorsuch also clarified that the trust fund recovery penalty qualifies as a tax liability and can thus be the basis of a prosecution for tax evasion.4

Lessons Learned

It is, of course, necessary to exercise caution in reading tea leaves, and a narrow sampling of cases is insufficient to conclude with confidence that Justice Gorsuch will show the same willingness as Justice Scalia to defend (certain) criminal rights. After all, Farr was a fairly unusually case, and Judge Gorsuch left open the possibility that the government could have avoided the constructive amendment problem that it had created by drafting a bare-bones indictment. That solution, of course, will not help criminal defendants who will be forced to rely on rarely granted bills of particulars to draw out the government's case.

In that way, Farr presents an interesting tension with Justice Scalia's dissent in United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U.S. 102, 111 (2007). Resendiz-Ponce was convicted of illegally attempting to reenter the country based on an indictment that failed to allege that he had committed any overt act in connection with his reentry. An eight-justice majority concluded that the indictment was sufficient, reasoning that "attempt" necessarily connotes both intent and some overt act. Justice Scalia refused to give the government the benefit of that doubt. Instead he found the indictment faulty on the straightforward view that it failed to satisfy the requirement that it allege the two elements of attempted reentry: both intent to commit the underlying crime and some act toward its commission. Thus, while both Judge Gorsuch in Farr and Justice Scalia in Resendiz-Ponce showed themselves committed to construe indictments strictly, the former did so by encouraging the government to allege fewer particulars, while the latter concluded that more details were necessary.

For better or worse, we will have several decades to decide whether Judge Gorsuch's strict reading of the indictment in Farr reflects his agreement with Justice Scalia's view that defendants are entitled to the strict construction of criminal laws, as opposed to an outlier based on the government's sloppiness in drafting the indictment.5 Farr is, all the same, a good decision for practitioners to know, even if we will need to wait before deciding where Justice Gorsuch fits on the criminal law spectrum.

Footnotes:

1 See, e.g., Hans von Spakovsky & Elizabeth Slattery, "Trump's Supreme Court Pick Is Antonin Scalia's Mirror Image," Fortune, Feb. 1, 2017; Adam Liptak, "In Judge Neil Gorsuch, an Echo of Scalia in Philosophy and Style," The New York Times, Jan. 31, 2017.

2 See David M. Dorsen, "Antonin Scalia, part-time liberal," The Washington Post, Jan. 26, 2017.

3 See, e.g., United States v. Rentz, 777 F.3d 1105 (10th Cir. 2015) (Gorsuch, J.) (applying the rule of lenity to affirm dismissal of one of several charges requiring use of firearm because each charge required independent use of firearm); United States v. Games-Perez, 667 F.3d 1136, 1142-46 (10th Cir. 2012) (Gorsuch, J., dissenting) (criticizing the majority for upholding a felon-in-possession conviction without requiring the government to prove the defendant's knowledge that he was a convicted felon); Damon Root, "On Criminal Justice and Executive Branch Power, Neil Gorsuch May Be More 'Liberal' Than Merrick Garland," Reason, April 4, 2017; Addy R. Schmitt & Lauren Briggerman, "Where Will Gorsuch Stand on White-Collar Criminal Statute Limits?," National Law Journal, March 27, 2017 (Gorsuch's past opinions "constru[ing] criminal statutes narrowly and [holding] the prosecution to its burden of proving every element of an offense" suggest he may be in favor of limiting the reach of insider-trading prosecutions); Sam Hananel, "Neil Gorsuch could be the Supreme Court's wild card in criminal justice cases," Business Insider, March 14, 2017 (positioning Gorsuch as further left on criminal justice than some critics allow, while noting reservations based on certain decisions); C. Jarrett Dieterle, "Gorsuch v. Over-criminalization," National Review, Feb. 24, 2017 (summarizing Gorsuch's arguments against the proliferation of federal criminal provisions).

4 Farr was duly re-tried and her second conviction was affirmed by a different panel of the Tenth Circuit, which rejected her attempt to resuscitate her Double Jeopardy argument.

5 Indeed, defendants looking for comfort in Farr have found it all too easily limited to its facts. See United States v. Christy, No. 15-40091-01, 2017 WL 169087 (D. Kan. Jan. 17, 2017) (no constructive amendment where indictment alleged defendant twice laundered $4,200, but trial evidence showed one incident of $1,000 and another of $3,000); United States v. Lynch, No. 14-CR-181, 2016 WL 4179429 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 8, 2016) (distinguishing Farr in dismissing charges against individual as the "person required" under 26 U.S.C. §7202 to pay over employment taxes); United States v. McLain, 597 F. Supp. 2d 987 (D. Minn. 2009) (same).

Reprinted with permission from the May 18, 2017 edition of the New York Law Journal © 2017 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.