Another State Tax Protester Bites the Dust

[Pantherphil]

This nimrod was a local School Board member in a small Maine town who managed to attract a lot of attention with his "show me the law" rhetoric. It did not end well.

Note that Skarbinski attempted to file his own pro se brief raising frivolous tax arguments in addition to the legal brief filed by his appellate counsel. I suspect that counsel refused to raise blatantly frivolous contentions.







MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 2011 ME 65
Docket: Cum-10-257
Submitted
On Briefs: April 27, 2011
Decided: June 2, 2011
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, LEVY, SILVER, MEAD, GORMAN, and JABAR,
JJ.
STATE OF MAINE
v.
MICHAEL A. SKARBINSKI
PER CURIAM
[¶1] Michael A. Skarbinski appeals from a judgment of conviction entered in
the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Beaudoin, J.), following a jury trial, on
one count of theft by deception (Class C), 17-A M.R.S. § 354(1)(A), (B)(4) (2010);
two counts of criminal attempted theft by deception (Class D), 17-A M.R.S.
§§ 152(1)(D), 354(1)(A), (B)(4) (2010); and three counts of making and
subscribing false tax returns (Class D), 36 M.R.S. § 5333(1) (2010). All counts
arise from Skarbinski filing requests for tax refunds claiming no taxable income
for the years 2005, 2006, and 2007, when Skarbinski had received substantial
income. The theft by deception charge relates to a refund that was paid. The
attempted theft by deception charges relate to refund requests that were apparently
not paid.
2
[¶2] We address Skarbinski’s claims of error as follows:
[¶3] First, contrary to Skarbinski’s contentions, the court did not err, much
less commit prejudicial error, when it correctly instructed the jury on principles of
tax law, see United States v. Mikutowicz, 365 F.3d 65, 70 (1st Cir. 2004), and the
court’s instructions did not infringe upon the jury’s role as fact-finder. See
generally State v. Gantnier, 2008 ME 40, ¶¶ 6, 13, 942 A.2d 1191, 1194, 1195
(reviewing instructions as a whole for prejudicial error when the objection to the
instruction was preserved at trial); accord State v. Dumond, 2000 ME 95, ¶ 11,
751 A.2d 1014, 1017.
[¶4] Additionally, the court committed no error in instructing the jury that if
Skarbinski believed the tax laws to be “unconstitutional, illegal, or disagreed with
the law without an objectively reasonable good faith belief,” his belief was not a
defense to the charges. See State v. Elliott, 2010 ME 3, ¶ 22, 987 A.2d 513, 520
(reviewing instructions for obvious error when objection to the instructions
unpreserved at trial); State v. Greenleaf, 2004 ME 149, ¶¶ 21-23, 863 A.2d 877,
882; see also Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 202 n.8, 204-06 (1991)
(holding that, unlike instances of misunderstanding, a good faith belief that federal
income tax laws are unconstitutional or invalid, or a good faith disagreement with
them, is not a defense to a willful failure to file tax returns or to evade taxes).
3
[¶5] Further, the State’s closing argument was neither inflammatory nor did it
improperly interject irrelevant issues into the case. Accordingly, the State
committed no prosecutorial error and Skarbinski was not deprived of a fair trial.
See State v. Schmidt, 2008 ME 151, ¶ 17, 957 A.2d 80, 85 (holding that a
prosecutor may argue his analysis of the evidence at trial, may “attack credibility
by analyzing the evidence and highlighting absurdities or discrepancies in a
witness’s testimony,” and may, without engaging in prohibited argument, “appeal
to the jury’s common sense and experience” (quotation marks omitted)); State v.
Clark, 2008 ME 136, ¶ 7, 954 A.2d 1066, 1068-69 (stating the standard of review).
[¶6] Finally, contrary to Skarbinski’s contentions, viewing the evidence and
all reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom in a light most favorable to
the State, the jury could have found each element of the offenses charged beyond a
reasonable doubt, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.1 See
State v. Tayman, 2008 ME 177, ¶ 4, 960 A.2d 1151, 1153 (stating the standard of
review); State v. Tait, 483 A.2d 745, 746 (Me. 1984) (stating that issues of witness
credibility are the jury’s exclusive province and that we give great deference to the
findings of a properly instructed jury acting on competent evidence); see also
36 M.R.S. § 5121 (2010); Williams v. State Tax Assessor, 2002 ME 172, ¶ 13,
1 We have considered Skarbinski’s arguments, included in a separately-filed pro se brief, even though
he failed to obtain leave of this Court file his brief. See generally M.R. App. P. 7.
4
812 A.2d 245, 248 (“Interpreting section 5121 to require the Assessor to accept the
federal adjusted gross income figure as reported on the taxpayer’s state return
would contradict section 5121’s express language in cases when that figure is
contrary to federal law.”).
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
Attorney for Michael A. Skarbinski:
William Maselli, Esq.
98 Washington Avenue
Portland, Maine 04101
Attorneys for the State of Maine:
Gregg D. Bernstein, Asst. Atty. Gen.
William J. Schneider, Attorney General
Darcy Mitchell, Student Atty.
Office of the Attorney General
6 State House Station
Augusta, Maine 04333
Cumberland County Unified Criminal Docket docket number CR-2009-2015
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY

[ArthurWankspittle]

Interesting that he was prosecuted for theft by deception and not just not paying his tax bill.

[jkeeb]

I like the theft by deception and attempted theft by deception. He got a refund by filing a bogus return and he tried to get two others by filing bogus returns. Take note CTCers.