Carlo Marinello is the petitioner in this case.
He was convicted by the DOJ of tax fraud as well as obstruction.
He owned and operated his own freight couriering business.
He did not keep a tight ship.
He was accused of impeding the administration of the tax code by failing to maintain corporate
books and records, failing to provide his accountant with complete and accurate information
related to his personal income and the income of his business, destroying and discarding
business records.
The government, in this case, claims that Mr. Marinello committed north tax fraud and
obstruction.
The IRS has defined obstruction as any attempt to interfere with the day-to-day work of the
IRS.
Mr. Marinello admits that he committed tax fraud.
But he says that he can't also be convicted of obstruction when he did not even know that
an investigation was underway.
The fighting issue in this case really is: Can a defendant be said to have a criminal
state of mind to obstruct when he doesn't know that an investigation is in process.
More typically in criminal cases, obstruction is related to after-the-fact behavior.
Section 7212(a) of the Internal Revenue Code says, "Whoever corruptly, or by force, endeavors
to obstruct or impede the due administration of this title shall, upon conviction therefore,
be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."
The term corruptly goes to a defendant's state of mind, and state of mind is a very important
question in every criminal case.
State of mind, or scienter, as the law defines it, is an element of almost every criminal
offense.
A person cannot be guilty of a crime unless he intended to cross a certain line.
So whether or not Mr. Marinello possessed the requisite state of mind is a critical
question in this case.
As it's written, it's very broad.
The IRS gets to decide whether or not their procedures have been interfered with.
A broad interpretation of the statute gives the IRS more power to pursue more wrongdoers.
The government's position, in this case, is that every hour of every day, the United States
IRS is administering the tax code.
The IRS basically says that Mr. Marinello, as a business owner, should have known that
is conduct violated tax law.
Mr. Marinello says that although he may have ad- violated the tax law, he did not know
that he was obstructing in any way a pending investigation.
Statutes have to be clear enough that a reasonable man would know he was violating them.
The government's best argument is its reliance on the plain language of the statute.
The statute in question nowhere mentions a pending investigation, nowhere requires the
defendant have knowledge of a pending investigation.
And the government says, by its own terms, the statute does not require this additional element.
The government argues that Mr. Mar- Marinello has simply made this up to suit his own situation.
A victory for the government is the ability to send a strong message to taxpayers that
they will be pursued aggressively for any perceived violation of the tax laws.
And this case would certainly embolden the IRS to continue to seek aggressive judgments
and prosecutions against defendants whether or not they knew an investigation was underway.
No comments:
Post a Comment