We represent taxpayers in IRS Criminal tax investigations frequently, and often deal with foreign bank account issues in Stamford, Connecticut as well as elsewhere in New England. In United States v. Renner, 648 F.3d 680 (8th Cir. 2011), the Eighth Circuit upheld the district court’s decision to grant a downward variance in a tax evasion case based on the fact that the defendant had consulted with tax professionals, even though the jury did not believe the defendant met all the requirements for a good-faith defense.
We have seen the United States Supreme Court conclude recently that the federal sentencing guidelines are not only not mandatory but may not even be presumed to be reasonable. This allows us to argue for a departure from the guidelines when facts and circumstances warrant it.
Steven Mark Renner (“Renner”) was convicted of four counts of tax evasion, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201. At sentencing, the district court found an offense level of 22 based on a tax loss of approximately $1.13 million. After the court adjusted Renner’s Criminal History Category to I, the advisory Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”) range was 41 to 51 months. The court granted Renner a downward variance and sentenced him to 18 months’ imprisonment.
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit noted that, in the absence of significant procedural error, it was required to review the sentence for substantive reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Here, the government argued that the district court abused its discretion and imposed an unreasonably lenient sentence by granting the downward variance based on a fact – i.e., good-faith reliance upon expert advice – that had been considered and rejected by the jury. The appellate court acknowledged that the district court based its variance, in part, on the fact that Renner had consulted with a tax attorney and accountant before filing his tax returns, a fact that the district court believed distinguished Renner from other tax evaders. The appellate court reasoned, however, that the sentence was not based on facts that contravened the jury’s verdict, because the sentencing transcript indicated that the district court accepted the jury’s rejection of the good-faith defense. The appellate court concluded that the district court was entitled to consider that Renner had consulted tax professionals, even if the jury did not believe that Renner met all of the requirements for a good-faith defense.
Holding that the district court did not commit procedural error and that the sentence was substantively reasonable, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court.
If you are either the target of a criminal tax investigation by the Internal revenue Service or have questions regarding federal sentencing in tax crimes in Stamford, Connecticut or elsewhere, please do not hesitate to contact me at egreen@convicerpercy.com.
Eric L. Green, Esq.
Convicer, Percy & Green LLP
60 Long Ridge Road, Suite 202
Hartford, CT 06902
Ph. (203) 602-5550
Fax (203) 286-1311
Comments(0)