United States v. Lynnette Harris and Leigh Ann Conley
942 F.2d 1125, 68 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5482, 33 Fed. R. Serv. 967 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A criminal conviction for willful tax evasion cannot be sustained when the underlying tax obligation is so uncertain under existing statutes, regulations, and case law that it fails to provide fair warning of the conduct required. In such circumstances, the element of willfulness—the intentional violation of a known legal duty—is impossible to establish as a matter of law.
Facts:
- David Kritzik, a wealthy widower, gave more than half a million dollars each to twin sisters Leigh Ann Conley and Lynnette Harris over several years in the context of a personal relationship.
- On his gift tax returns for 1984-1986, Kritzik reported gifts to Conley in amounts substantially less than the total she received.
- Conley signed a bank card listing Kritzik in a space designated for 'employer.'
- Conley would pick up a check from Kritzik's office at regular intervals of every week to ten days.
- Kritzik wrote several letters to Harris expressing his love for her, his pleasure in giving her things, and his intent to provide for her financial security.
- In a letter to his insurance company, Kritzik referred to jewelry he had given Harris as a 'gift.'
- In a separate civil lawsuit against Kritzik's estate, Harris's pleadings alleged that the payments she received were made pursuant to an 'express oral agreement.'
- Harris inflated bills for house remodeling that Kritzik had offered to pay for, keeping over a hundred thousand dollars for herself.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States government initiated separate criminal proceedings against Leigh Ann Conley and Lynnette Harris in federal district court.
- A jury convicted Leigh Ann Conley on four counts of willfully failing to file income tax returns.
- A jury convicted Lynnette Harris on two counts of willfully failing to file income tax returns and two counts of willful tax evasion.
- The district court entered judgments of conviction and sentenced both defendants.
- Leigh Ann Conley and Lynnette Harris both filed an appeal of their convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's failure to report large cash payments received from a lover as taxable income constitute willful tax evasion when existing tax law is unsettled and provides no clear guidance on whether such payments should be treated as gifts or income?
Opinions:
Majority - Eschbach, Senior Circuit Judge.
No. The defendants' convictions for willful tax evasion cannot stand because the tax law regarding payments to a mistress is too uncertain to provide fair warning, making it impossible to prove the defendants acted with the requisite 'willful' intent. For Conley, the government's evidence was insufficient to prove the donor's intent, a critical element in distinguishing a gift from income under Commissioner v. Duberstein. For Harris, the trial court erred by excluding letters from Kritzik that were essential to her defense that she had a good-faith belief the money was a gift, which would negate willfulness. Most importantly, for both defendants, the law is objectively ambiguous. The Duberstein standard is a general, case-by-case inquiry ill-suited for establishing clear criminal liability. Existing Tax Court cases involving payments to mistresses favor treating such payments as non-taxable gifts, unless they are specific payments for specific sex acts. Because the taxability of these payments is sufficiently in doubt, willfulness is impossible to prove as a matter of law.
Concurring - Flaum, Circuit Judge
No. While the convictions should be reversed, the majority's reasoning is flawed. The court should not create a categorical rule exempting payments to mistresses from income tax. The proper analysis, under Commissioner v. Duberstein, remains a case-by-case, fact-intensive inquiry into the transferor's intent. The majority's broad rule improperly preempts this inquiry. The correct reason to reverse Harris's conviction is simply that the government failed to present sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Kritzik's specific intent was to pay for services rather than to give a gift. The record, absent direct evidence of Kritzik's intent, is too 'scanty' to support a criminal conviction.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant 'fair warning' principle within criminal tax law, limiting the government's ability to prosecute individuals for tax evasion when the underlying tax obligation is ambiguous or unsettled. It affirms that the 'willfulness' element of a tax crime requires the violation of a known legal duty, which cannot exist if the law itself is unclear. The decision has made it more difficult for the government to use criminal prosecutions to establish new or 'pioneering' interpretations of tax law, requiring that criminal liability be based on clear, pre-existing rules. This raises the bar for prosecutors in cases involving factually nuanced areas like the gift-versus-income distinction.
