848 F.2d 1243
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
William E. STRAUSS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 87-1002.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 17, 1988.*
Decided June 3, 1988.
Before MERRILL, REINHARDT and CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, Circuit Judges.
William E. Strauss, Jr. was charged by direct information with three counts of willful failure to file an income tax return for the calendar years 1978 (Count I), 1979 (Count II), and 1980 (Count III), all in violation of 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7203. After a jury trial, Strauss was convicted on all counts. Imposition of sentence was suspended on all counts, and Strauss was placed on three years probation; he was also ordered to pay a $3,000 fine. Strauss timely appeals.
On appeal, he contends that there is insufficient evidence of wilfulness to support his conviction.
His defense at trial was that he failed to file because he entertained a good faith belief that he was due a refund from taxes withheld in the past and a good faith misunderstanding of the law, in that he believed that his right to refund relieved him of the need to file. This defense was rejected by the jury.
There was sufficient evidence adduced at trial to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Strauss willfully failed to file income tax returns, and that his failure to file did not result from a good faith misunderstanding of his legal obligation. For example, there was evidence of a number of contacts between Strauss and the IRS in which he was advised of his obligation to file the returns. The evidence further suggests that Strauss' claim that he did not file the returns because he was due a refund is not credible. We conclude that, based on all the evidence, the jury was free to draw that inference. Thus, on the record before it the jury could have decided that Strauss' failure to file a return was not in good faith and that the element of willfulness had been established beyond a reasonable doubt.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.