- 18 -
Nevertheless, we find no inconsistency between the
conviction for tax evasion and the acquittal for conspiracy,
based on the differing requirements of proof.13 Cf. Los Angeles
v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 806 (1985) (Stevens, J., dissenting)
("when faced with an apparently inconsistent verdict, a court has
a duty to attempt to read the verdict in a manner that will
resolve inconsistencies."). It is perfectly logical that the
jury may have found all of those facts necessary to convict
petitioner for tax evasion, and which overlap the facts necessary
to be found for the conspiracy charge, but did not find the facts
necessary for the conspiracy charge that do not so overlap. We
thus do not hesitate in applying collateral estoppel to the tax
13 Counts I and II, regarding tax evasion, of which petitioner
was found guilty, charged that petitioner:
did willfully attempt to evade and defeat a large part
of the income tax due and owing by him to the United
States of America * * *, by preparing and causing to be
prepared, and by signing and causing to be signed a
false and fraudulent U.S. Individual Income Tax Return,
Form 1040, which was filed with the Internal Revenue
Service * * *.
In comparison, count III, regarding conspiracy, of which
petitioner was acquitted, charged that petitioner:
and others known and unknown, did unlawfully,
willfully, and knowingly conspire, combine,
confederate, and agree together and with each other to
defraud the United States by impeding, impairing,
obstructing, and defeating the lawful Government
functions of the Internal Revenue Service of the
Treasury Department in the ascertainment, computation,
assessment, and collection of the revenue: to wit,
income taxes.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011