United States v. William E. Eaken
1994 WL 51267, 17 F.3d 203 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An affirmative act to evade or defeat taxes under 26 U.S.C. § 7201 can be established by conduct intended to conceal income, such as depositing embezzled funds into multiple bank accounts, even if that conduct also serves to conceal the underlying crime of embezzlement.
Facts:
- In 1984, attorney William E. Eaken was appointed administrator of the estate of Mary Oma Lane, receiving approximately $190,754 into an estate bank account.
- In 1985, Eaken began embezzling funds from the estate account.
- Eaken made 34 separate withdrawals from the estate account using withdrawal forms rather than checks.
- He then deposited the embezzled funds into three different accounts he controlled: a personal attorney account, a partnership account, and a corporate account.
- Eaken used the embezzled funds for personal and professional expenditures, such as purchasing land and paying for construction.
- Eaken failed to file a tax return for 1985, but did file for an extension and submitted a payment of $1,700, while his actual tax liability was estimated to be over $82,000.
- In 1986, Eaken retained an attorney to mislead the probate court by representing that the estate would be closed shortly, which Eaken failed to do, later admitting he had depleted the estate's assets.
Procedural Posture:
- William E. Eaken was indicted in a federal district court (court of first instance) for income tax evasion under 26 U.S.C. § 7201 and failure to file a tax return under 26 U.S.C. § 7203.
- Following a trial, a jury found Eaken guilty on both counts.
- The trial court sentenced Eaken to five years of imprisonment on the tax evasion count and two years of probation on the failure-to-file count.
- Eaken (appellant) appealed his conviction on the tax evasion count to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, arguing that the government (appellee) presented insufficient evidence of a willful, affirmative act of evasion.
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 conduct of embezzling funds and subsequently depositing them into multiple separate bank accounts constitute a willful affirmative act of tax evasion under 26 U.S.C. § 7201, or is it merely a passive failure to pay taxes coupled with acts to conceal the separate crime of embezzlement?
Opinions:
Majority - Will, District Judge
Yes, a defendant's conduct of embezzling funds and depositing them into multiple accounts constitutes a willful affirmative act of tax evasion. While mere passive failure to pay taxes is insufficient, acts of concealment can satisfy the affirmative act requirement even if they also serve to hide another crime. The court distinguished this case from United States v. Mesheski, where the defendant only passively failed to pay taxes on embezzled funds. Here, Eaken took affirmative steps by making 34 withdrawals using withdrawal slips and parcelling the funds among three separate accounts. Citing Spies v. United States, the court reasoned that if a tax-evasion motive plays any part in the conduct, the offense is made out, even if the primary motive was to conceal the embezzlement. A rational jury could conclude that Eaken's actions, which had the likely effect of concealing income from the IRS, were not merely passive but constituted a willful attempt to evade taxes.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'affirmative act' element of felony tax evasion, particularly when the income is derived from another crime. It reinforces the principle from Spies v. United States that conduct serving a dual purpose—concealing an underlying crime and evading taxes—can still satisfy the requirements for a tax evasion conviction. The case distinguishes between the misdemeanor of passive non-payment and the felony of active evasion, signaling that acts designed to obscure the source or existence of income, such as spreading funds across multiple accounts, will likely be treated as affirmative acts of evasion. This provides a clearer standard for prosecutors in cases where tax crimes are intertwined with other illegal activities.
