Justia U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of eight counts of filing a false income tax return (26 U.S.C. 7206(1)). The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Although the district court applied the wrong standard in determining whether defendant could assert good faith, the error was harmless given overwhelming evidence of a lack of good faith. The court properly held that he could not present evidence of good faith unless he waived his Fifth Amendment rights and testified and relied on acquitted conduct concerning his sisters' tax returns in determining the sentence to be imposed.

Defendant was convicted of tax evasion, a felony (26 U.S.C. 7201), and failure to file a tax return for the 2004 tax year, a misdemeanor (26 U.S.C. 7203). The Seventh Circuit affirmed in part. Defendant waived his claim under the Speedy Trial Act (18 U.S.C. 3162) by failing to move to dismiss the indictment prior to trial. Defendant presented no support for arguing a Sixth Amendment violation caused by the pretrial delay and waived a multiplicity challenge to his indictment. The convictions were supported by substantial evidence and the sentence was reasonable. The district court has authority to impose restitution as a condition of supervised release; the court vacated and remanded for a determination of whether it had done so.

A sausage manufacturer brought claims against its former business partner, Pizza Hut, in 1993. In 2002 the manufacturer agreed to drop its last remaining claim, trade secret misappropriation, in exchange for a $15.3 million payment. When it received its $6.12 million take-home portion of the settlement, C&F, a shareholder and an S corporation, reported the income as long-term capital gain. Its shareholders reported their passed-through pro rata shares the same way. The IRS concluded that the settlement income should have been taxed as ordinary income and issued each of the shareholders a deficiency notice. The tax court and Seventh Circuit affirmed. The tax court found that Pizza Hut paid for lost profits, lost opportunities, operating losses and expenditures and rightly concluded that the settlement did not represent the final phase of a 13-year-long transfer of a capital asset. Because there was not a complete transfer of all substantial rights, there was no sale of a capital asset or long-term capital gain resulting therefrom.

The Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act prevents states and their subdivisions from imposing discriminatory taxes against railroads. 49 U.S.C. 11501. In 2008, the drainage district, a subdivision of Illinois, changed its method for calculating assessments. All other owners are assessed on a per-acre formula, but railroad, pipeline, and utility land were to be assessed on the basis of "benefit," apparently based on the difference in value between land within the district and land outside the levees; annual crop rentals being paid; and agricultural production of lands within the district. Two rail carriers brought suit under a section of the Act, which prevents imposition of "another tax that discriminates against a rail carrier." The district court held that the assessment was prohibited by the Act, but concluded that it was powerless to enjoin the tax. The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that the court has authority to enjoin the tax, but, under principles of comity, should eliminate only the discriminatory aspects, not the entire scheme. The assessment is a tax that, raises general revenues; its ultimate use is for the whole district. It imposes a proportionately heavier tax on railroading than other activities.

Illinois riverboat casinos filed a RICO suit (18 U.S.C. 1961) against racetracks, charging that the owner of two tracks, in cahoots with then-governor, Blagojevich, "bought" statutes requiring casinos to deposit three percent of their revenues to the "Horse Racing Equity Trust Fund" for disbursement to racetracks for use to increase purses and improve the tracks. The district judge issued, then dissolved, a temporary restraining order. The Seventh Circuit reinstated, so that no money is being disbursed, but on rehearing en banc, affirmed. The Tax Injunction Act forbids federal district courts to "enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law," if an adequate remedy is available in the state courts, as it is in Illinois 28 U.S.C. 1341. If unlawfulness can be traced to the racetracks, the casinos can seek damages from them. The Act does not bar federal monetary relief, but federal courts cannot freeze the stateâs tax moneys by imposition of a constructive trust. The court extended the TRO for 30 days pending petition for certiorari.

After not paying taxes for several years and creating shell corporations to receive his income, the defendant, a commodities trader, entered a guilty plea to one count of tax evasion, 26 U.S.C. 7201. The district court calculated an offense level of 21, carrying a range of 37-46 months' imprisonment under the sentencing guidelines and imposed a 24 month sentence. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Rejecting an argument that the government breached the plea agreement, the court reasoned that both parties understood that the losses stated in that agreement remained uncertain and open to recalculation. The record supported the tax losses upon which the sentence was based. Application of an enhancement for use of "sophisticated means" was appropriate.

In 2004 the bank made a loan secured by a mortgage and all rents from the property. Three years later the borrower defaulted. The IRS filed a tax lien against the property. A receiver, appointed at the request of the bank, rented the property and collected $82,675. The district court held that the IRS lien had priority. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded. The bank had perfected its security interest in the rents under Indiana law; 26.U.S.C. 6323 gives such an interest priority over a federal tax lien if the property subject to the interest was "in existence" when the federal tax lien was filed. The property at issue is the real estate, not the rental income, and was in existence at the time the lien was filed.

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the Tax Court holding that the Coles omitted income from their 2001 return and imposed a fraud penalty. Because the Coles had not maintained adequate records of income from a "confusing maze of entities and financial dealings," the IRS reconstructed their income. The Coles did not rebut the presumption of accuracy with respect to the reconstruction. An argument that certain entity income was not attributable to the Coles was "spurious," according to the court, and a claim that the Coles did not benefit from certain loans was a "nonstarter." The court particularly noted the Coles' control over the entities at issue. There was clear and convincing evidence of fraud: Jennifer Cole has worked as an accountant and Scott is a licensed attorney, yet they failed to keep records, commingled funds, and funneled assets into entities that had no business purpose.