Page 25 - Phoenix Vol 11 No 4

Jim engaged in a friendly conver- sation with the o cer and made clear that the conversation was concluded. No agreement was reached, and the o cer could put whatever further he had to say in writing. Jim then began to pull the garage door from the ceiling down to the ground, which caused him to take a step forward. His large, protruding belly bumped the large, protruding belly of the o cer. Jim was charged with assault on an IRS o - cer, charges later changed to “intimida- tion,” a ve-year felony under 26 U.S.C §7212, the o cer claiming a chest-shove, a physical impossibility given the match- ing pot bellies. I interviewed Jim at his home and had him re-enact his encoun- ter with the o cer, my son Ryan taking photos as evidence for the trial.
Our defense to what we called “the stomach bumping case” was simple: no crime com- mitted. Jim had no intention of intimidating much less assaulting the o cer. e stomach bump was simply a result of two large men concluding a conversation. A er all, in his report to the prosecutor the o cer had not claimed that Jim attempted to hit him in the head with the garage door or otherwise harm him. Obvious to us: the o cer purposefully
Recent Tax Prosecution Headlines
In recent months the news headlines have included high-pro le federal tax prosecu- tions, from the former attorney of President Donald Trump, Michael Cohen, and the President’s former Campaign Manager, Paul Manafort, to attorney Michael Avenatti, said to be a “provocateur” of the President for Av- enatti’s public claim of the President’s “hush money” payment of $130,000, through at- torney Cohen, to adult- lm actress Stormy Daniel. Consider also the recent “Varsity Blues” prosecutions in which y defendants, of whom thirty-three are parents, including Hollywood Stars and prominent business leaders, are charged with bribing university o cials with as much as $1.2M for admission
retaliated for Jim’s exercise of his constitu- tional right to refuse a surprise collection ex- amination at his garage on a Monday morn- ing. But the o cer provided us with more for our defense. Far more.
Jim described the o cer as at least six feet two inches tall, husky and well built. Jim was but ve feet six inches tall and did not in the least bit appear intimidating. us, our de- fense: select lots of women for the jury and appeal to the ego of the o cer, trusting that he would not admit before women jurors that he was intimidated by Jim. If he claimed oth- erwise, he would appear to be a liar.
During jury selection we were able to select several women. e o cer was the only gov- ernment witness, and he accurately recited the facts. With permission of Judge Hardy, on cross-examination I asked the o cer to step down from the witness chair and stand before the jury box. I had Bob stand, facing the o cer, with their bellies almost touching. Appealing to his ego, I asked the o cer, “You were not in the least bit intimidated by my client, where you?” “No,” was his honest an- swer. Had he answered otherwise; he would have appeared not only ridiculous but a liar. I moved for judgment of acquittal for lack of evidence of intimidation. Judge Hardy imme- diately granted my motion. Case closed.
of their child to a prestigious school.
Rumor has it: tax charges will be added if the “Varsity Blues” defendants refuse to plea to the current non-tax charges of conspiracy and mail fraud. A er all, any payment made to a university as a bribe does not satisfy the test of “no bene t to the donor” required for the charitable deduction to be taken on the tax re- turn and can therefore result in a charge of at- tempted tax evasion under §7201, a ve-year felony. As is o en the case: nancial crimes encompass tax crimes; thus, many public g- ures and others are charged with tax crimes in conjunction with other nancial crimes. For example, the crimes of embezzlement, kick- backs, and fraud result in unreported income.
25