U.S. Supreme Court: Government Went Too Far in Tax Obstruction Prosecution
The U.S. Supreme Court today barred the government from prosecuting taxpayers for obstructing the administration of the Internal Revenue Code, unless it can show they acted in response to a pending or reasonably foreseeable IRS proceeding. In Marinello v. United States, the Court addressed the so-called "Omnibus Clause" of Section 7212(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, which provides for a felony charge when any person "corruptly … obstructs or impedes, or endeavors to obstruct or impede, the due administration" of the Internal Revenue Code. The government had charged that a taxpayer who paid expenses in cash, did not maintain tax records, and kept a second set of books violated Section 7212(a).
Reversing the Second Circuit, the Supreme Court, in a 7–2 opinion, held that to secure a conviction under the Omnibus Clause, the government must show that: (i) "there is 'nexus' between the defendant's conduct and a particular administrative proceeding"; and (ii) a "proceeding was pending at the time the defendant engaged in the obstructive conduct or, at the least, was then reasonably foreseeable by the defendant."
Justice Breyer, writing for the majority, also rejected the government's position that "corruptly" merely requires proof that a defendant acted with "specific intent to obtain an unlawful advantage." The Court equated the term "corruptly" with the requirement under other criminal tax statues that the government prove that the defendant acted "willfully"—a heightened mens rea standard for establishing culpability.
The Supreme Court resolved a long-standing split among the circuits, rejecting the view held by the majority of the federal circuits that the Omnibus Clause criminalizes conduct even in the absence of an IRS proceeding. Judge Dennis Jacobs, writing in dissent to the Second Circuit, warned that an overly broad view of the Omnibus Clause may result in "prosecutorial abuse that the Supreme Court has repeatedly curtailed." The Supreme Court echoed Judge Jacobs's concerns, finding that the Omnibus Clause is "not … a 'catchall' for every violation that interferes with what the government describes as the 'continuous, ubiquitous, and universally known' administration of the Internal Revenue Code." As the Court stated, "[j]ust because a taxpayer knows that the IRS will review her tax return every year does not transform every violation of the Tax Code into an obstruction charge."
For further discussion, please see here.
Lawyer Contacts
For further information, please contact your principal Firm representative or one of the lawyers listed below. General email messages may be sent using our "Contact Us" form, which can be found at www.jonesday.com/contactus/.
Kathryn Keneally
New York
+1.212.326.3402
kkeneally@jonesday.com
Frank J. Jackson
New York
+1.212.326.8329
fjackson@jonesday.com
Michael J. Scarduzio
New York
+1.212.326.3638
mscarduzio@jonesday.com
Jones Day publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information purposes only and may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the Firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our "Contact Us" form, which can be found on our website at www.jonesday.com. The mailing of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Firm.
