The Net Worth Method and Negating Nontaxable Sources (5/3/11)

I have just re-read United States v. Fox, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 21386 (2010), a nonprecedential decision. (I know, one should not re-read or cite nonprecedential cases; they should just lapse into oblivion.)  But I did.

In that case, the defendant was convicted of five counts of tax evasion. The Government used the net worth method of proof. The net worth method requires that the Government prove opening and closing net worth and then account for the difference in the intervening accounting periods. Unlike, in civil cases, though, this accounting does not need to be a precise exercise because, for tax evasion, all the Government need show is some -- perhaps some substantial -- tax evaded without any need for establishing a precise or even an estimated amount of the total tax evaded. And the Government must also show some likely source of taxable income or at least negate nontaxable income. Even though this is a nonprecedential decision, I wonder whether the readers think this is an odd paragraph (case citations omitted):
Read more »

For Students - Good Trial Multi Issue Opinion - Net Worth, Inconsistent verdicts etc.

I offer the opinion in United States v. Matthew Fox, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97638 (D. N.J. 2009) particularly for students in the tax crimes area. In the opinion, the district court denies a convicted defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding a jury verdict and, alternatively, for a new trial. The opinion does give some sense of how the net worth case developed at trial and how the defense impemented its defense strategies, albeit unsuccessfully.

The case does have some sex it, although barely exposed and only for context. That context is work with a strip club "an Atlantic City gentleman's club called Bare Exposure." The work involved is by the defendant and his wife, appropriate named Melody Fox.

Addressed in the case are:

1. The application of the net worth method of proving a tax crime (how to serve up lead and the tracing of reasonable leads).
2. Inconsistency of verdicts (inconsistent verdicts have a place in our law; reminds me of Emerson's line "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.").

And other delightful things. Nothing ground shaking here in terms of establishing new law, but the package of the application of old law is very good.

Read and enjoy.