University of Houston School of Law
Tax Fraud and Money Laundering
Spring 2013
Adjunct Professors Campagna and Townsend

Update Materials and Book Errata
Last Updated:  02/22/11

These materials are intended for students of the course for supplemental reading and for updating and correcting the course book Townsend, Campagna, Johnson & Schumacher, Tax Crimes (Lexis-Nexis 2008).    Jack Townsend will also periodically post items about the subject of this course on his Federal Tax Crimes Blog (although this blog is not required reading nor are the topics designed in any way to suggest what might be covered on the examination; if we feel the items discussed there are important for the class (including possible appearance on an examination, we will so indicate below on this page by Chapter).  Where I mark the item OPTIONAL, it is not assigned reading.

Ch. 1 Overview of the Criminal Tax System.

1. Webster Commission Report in Adobe Acrobat Format.  (OPTIONAL)
2. Gary Becker, Nobel Prize winning economist, and Judge Richard Posner, outstanding federal judge, comments on "Why so Little Tax Evasion."  The original comments may be read here.  Judge Posner's comments and reader comments on his comments and his response to their comments may be read here.  (OPTIONAL)

Ch. 2A Crimes Under the Internal Revenue Code - Tax Evasion

Ch. 2B Crimes under the Internal Revenue Code - Other Offenses

1. Read Jury Instructions in Tax Obstruction and Klein Conspiracy Case (Federal Tax Crimes Blog 2/6/13), here.

Ch. 3 Crimes Outside the Internal Revenue Code

• Title 18 Code Provisions Related to Tax Crimes.
• Read Jury Instructions in Tax Obstruction and Klein Conspiracy Case (Federal Tax Crimes Blog 2/6/13), here.
• Correction to the Supplement at p. 15 (noting the changes in red):
• P. 100.  Substitute the following for the paragraph (and its indented quote) beginning “Who bears the burden of proving the withdrawal.” 
          Who bears the burden of proving the withdrawal, the defendant as an affirmative defense or must the Government disprove the withdrawal beyond a reasonable doubt?  In  Smith v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 601 (2013), the Supreme Court held that the defendant must prove that affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence.  The Supreme Court gave the analytical framework as follows:  (i) the Government must disprove beyond a reasonable doubt an affirmative defense going to an element of the crime; but (ii) the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence an affirmative defense not going to an element of the crime.  The court held that the withdrawal does not go to an element of the crime.  (By way of contrast, the good faith defense to a crime requiring that the defendant act willfully goes to an element of the offense of tax evasion; hence, providing that the issue of good faith is in play based on the evidence, the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant lacked of good faith.)
  

Ch. 4 Methods of Proof.

Ch. 5 Prosecution Policies and Affirmative Defenses

Ch. 6 Sentencing in Tax Cases

Ch. 7 Government Information Gathering

Ch. 8 Pre-Trial Issues in Criminal Tax Cases

Ch. 10 Sentencing in Tax Cases

Ch. 11 Ethical Issues in Criminal Tax Practice

Ch. 12 Major Collateral Issues

Ch. 13 Civil Tax Considerations

Ch. 14 Putting It All Together

Student Questions asked after the last class and before 5:00 pm on May 4, along with professor's answers

Web Sites of Interest

Department of Justice
    Criminal Tax Manual - HTML
    Tax Division Home Page

Internal Revenue Service
    Criminal Investigation Division:
        CI Home Page
    Internal Revenue Manual
        Ch. 9 - Criminal Investigation

    United States Sentencing Commission

Additional Resources (Optional)

• United States Attorneys Bulletin Devoted to Tax Prosecutions (1998).  Somewhat dated now, but still contains the basic of DOJ's view of the tax system and the interface between DOJ Tax and the local United States Attorneys' Offices.