Found a TP not mentioned here before...

[Pangea]

I have not heard this name before.

A man was sentenced today to 18 months in prison for evading the payment of federal income taxes on over $470,000 in income, United States Attorney Paul J. Fishman announced.

John F. Mostler, 46, a computer network engineer, was convicted by a federal jury on January 7, 2010, of four counts of tax evasion, for the years 2002 through 2005. Mostler earned approximately $100,000 in income in each of those years. United States District Judge Anne E. Thompson presided over the trial and imposed the sentence today in Trenton federal court.

According to the evidence at trial:

Mostler evaded paying his income taxes by, among other things, submitting W-4 forms to his employers in which he falsely represented that he was exempt from federal income tax withholding. Mostler testified at trial that he believed that the mandatory payment of federal income taxes violated the United States Constitution, and, thus, that the payment of such taxes was voluntary. Mostler also admitted at trial that he threw any correspondence he received from the IRS about his unpaid taxes in the trash without reading it because he believed it was propaganda. In addition, Mostler sent letters to IRS agents and employees who contacted him about his unpaid taxes – threatening to sue them for mail fraud if they continued to contact him.

In addition to the prison term, Judge Thompson sentenced Mostler to three years of supervised release. He was also ordered to cooperate with the IRS for the payment of his outstanding taxes.

U.S. Attorney Fishman credited special agents of the Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigation, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Victor W. Lessoff, for the investigation leading to today’s sentence.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Harvey Bartle of the U.S. Attorney’s Office Criminal Division in Trenton.

Isn't that special?

[LPC]

Mostler evaded paying his income taxes by, among other things, submitting W-4 forms to his employers in which he falsely represented that he was exempt from federal income tax withholding.

The IRS can be pretty slow in some things, but they seem to be learning how to match up W-2s with Forms 1040, and to question why someone with enough income to file a return hasn't filed one.

[LPC]

Mostler also admitted at trial that he threw any correspondence he received from the IRS about his unpaid taxes in the trash without reading it because he believed it was propaganda. In addition, Mostler sent letters to IRS agents and employees who contacted him about his unpaid taxes – threatening to sue them for mail fraud if they continued to contact him.

This, combined with the jury trial (i.e., no plea bargain), looks like typical tax protester obstinance/belligerence, but the civil action to enforce a summons against Mostler shows some cooperation.

The summons enforcement action (CV-07-1870-FLW, filed 4/20/2007) shows that Mostler asked for, and received, and 30-day postponement on the hearing to show cause why the summons should not be enforced, on condition that Mostler produce the documents sought and meet with IRS agent Stroz within a week. Less than a month later, the government moved to dismiss, stating that Mostler had "substantially complied" with the summons.

In the criminal case, the government filed a pre-trial motion to exclude evidence that Mostler filed tax returns tax returns in 2007, after learning that there was a criminal investigation:

The evidence will further show that in January 2007, the defendant was contacted by Special Agent Gary Stroz of IRS Criminal Investigations with regard to his failure to file income tax returns and non-payment of taxes. The evidence will show that it was only then, after the threat of criminal prosecution, that the defendant filed his taxes for the tax years 2001 through 2006 and began payments on his 2001 taxes.

Admittedly, late filed returns are not a defense to prosecution, but the prosecution still feels somewhat harsh to me.

[Joey Smith]

a computer network engineer

This is not surprising, as quite a few TPs have been programmers or related.

[LPC]

a computer network engineer

This is not surprising, as quite a few TPs have been programmers or related.

Most common tax protester occupations (from what I have seen):

1. Airline pilots
2. Chiropractors
3. Dentists
4. Computer programmers

What have I left out?

We've seen other occupations, but those are the ones that seem to pop up repeatedly.

[Dr. Caligari]

What have I left out?

We've seen other occupations, but those are the ones that seem to pop up repeatedly.

Police officers seem to be a common one as well.

[Dr. Caligari]

Admittedly, late filed returns are not a defense to prosecution, but the prosecution still feels somewhat harsh to me.

Back in the day, when I used to represent defendants in criminal tax cases (not TPs, just regular alleged cheats), the Government would try to argue that the late-filed returns should be seen by the jury as an admission of wrongdoing, and we on the defense side would point to them as evidence that the original non-filing wasn't willful: "As soon as the issue was called to his attention, he immediately paid everything he owed!"

Frankly, I don't see either argument as being very persuasive.

[Imalawman]

a computer network engineer

This is not surprising, as quite a few TPs have been programmers or related.

Most common tax protester occupations (from what I have seen):

1. Airline pilots
2. Chiropractors
3. Dentists
4. Computer programmers
5. Professionally unemployed - it seems a lot of tax protesters cannot handle steady, hard work.

What have I left out?

We've seen other occupations, but those are the ones that seem to pop up repeatedly.

[Gregg]

And a few of the ones who are gainfully employed free themselves of that distinction when they start down the road of trying to revoke their W4, threatening to sue the company etc....

[Pangea]

a computer network engineer

This is not surprising, as quite a few TPs have been programmers or related.

Most common tax protester occupations (from what I have seen):

1. Airline pilots
2. Chiropractors
3. Dentists
4. Computer programmers

What have I left out?

We've seen other occupations, but those are the ones that seem to pop up repeatedly.

In my experience, those I've seen more than others would be small business owners (a generalization of chiros and dentists), law enforcement (not just police officers), teachers and lawyers. And, let's not forget those who fancy themselves "investors," but really just blow their money on get-rich-quick schemes and MLMs.

I must say...I've held lengthy conversations with more than a few TPers. When not spouting their nonsensical legalese, they come across as very normal, average people. They are our neighbors and coworkers. They are intelligent and blend into society without seams. Until, of course, they start talking about taxes.

[lorne]

Should I take that as a compliment? You know, I could swear my posts are dissappearing. Ever had that feeling? It's like... someone is so afraid of .... I'm not sure ...

Anyway congrats on your find Pangea, how would you like your prize awarded? Estimates of the # of federal non-filers run 40 to 70 million. Of course not all are TPs, unless we expand the definition.

BTW, I no longer pay federal income tax. I don't sign federal forms with implied contracts. I am not afraid of you, or the IRS.

[Pangea]

Should I take that as a compliment? You know, I could swear my posts are dissappearing. Ever had that feeling? It's like... someone is so afraid of .... I'm not sure ...

Anyway congrats on your find Pangea, how would you like your prize awarded? Estimates of the # of federal non-filers run 40 to 70 million. Of course not all are TPs, unless we expand the definition.

BTW, I no longer pay federal income tax. I don't sign federal forms with implied contracts. I am not afraid of you, or the IRS.

A - Take what as a compliment?

B - What did I do or say to you to deserve your sarcasm?

C - I never thought you were afraid of me. Heck, before 15 minutes ago, I didn't know you existed.

You seem a touch paranoid. Do you know there is medication for that?

[wserra]

Should I take that as a compliment? You know, I could swear my posts are dissappearing. Ever had that feeling? It's like... someone is so afraid of .... I'm not sure ...

OK, I'll do this once. Any more would be feeding the troll, a Bad Thing.

Your posts aren't "dissappearing". When they are repetitive off-topic BS - most of the time - they're being moved. Check your own personal thread in Flames, or the "Stupid Stuff" thread here.

Were it not for this comment, your latest post (above) would join the others. Why? Well, Pangea started a thread about some relatively unknown tax evader. A couple of other posters followed up with further information about him, including the fact that he was a programmer. The thread segued into common TP occupations (programmer is one). You then barge in to complain about your posts "dissappearing", throw in a non-sequitur about non-filers, and reach a grand finale of how you allegedly don't pay taxes. The Harvey school of posting.

If you don't understand why posts like this will be moved - well, can't help ya.

[grixit]

Wait, are Forlorn Hope's pants disappearing again? I told him to stop using Bermuda Laundry Soap!

[The Observer]

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JOHN F. MOSTLER,
Appellant

Release Date: FEBRUARY 11, 2010

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. No. 3:09-cr-00176-1)
District Judge: Hon Anne E. Thompson

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 27, 2011

Before: FUENTES, CHAGARES, and ROTH, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: February 11, 2011)

OPINION

CHAGARES, Circuit Judge

John Mostler appeals from a final judgment of conviction by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. For the reasons set forth below, we will affirm Mostler's conviction.

I.

Because we write solely for the benefit of the parties, we will only briefly recite the facts. From a young age, Mostler claims to have held the belief that the payment of federal income taxes was voluntary. Despite this belief, Mostler paid his income taxes from 1982 through 2000. Following some additional research, largely conducted on the Internet, Mostler decided not to pay his taxes from the years 2000 through 2005. Although he was contacted by IRS agents, their refusal to respond to his letters with an affidavit of authority to collect taxes led him to conclude that he still did not have to pay. When an IRS agent arrived at his home, however, it caused some familial strife, and Mostler agreed to pay his back taxes and to continue to pay his taxes going forward. Despite this agreement, he still maintains his belief that the payment of federal income taxes is entirely voluntary.

Mostler was indicted on four counts of tax evasion, and was convicted by a jury on all four counts on January 7, 2010. At trial, his sole defense was that he had a good faith belief that he was not required to pay his federal income taxes, and that, therefore, he had not "willfully" violated the law, as required by 26 U.S.C. section 7201. Prior to the trial, the parties had a charge conference and worked together with the District Court to develop acceptable jury instructions. Although not all of defense counsel's requests were granted, the District Court explained its reasoning and offered alternative language suggestions, which were accepted by defense counsel. No objection was ever raised to the jury instructions that were ultimately given.

Following his conviction, Mostler filed a motion for new trial, arguing that he was denied his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment and his right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment because of the purportedly faulty jury instructions given by the District Court as well as its failure to answer properly a question from the jury relating to the good faith defense. This motion was denied, and Mostler was sentenced to 18 months of imprisonment on September 22, 2010. Mostler appeals the District Court's denial of his motion, and requests that we vacate his conviction and remand the case for a new trial.

II.

The District Court had jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 3231 and this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1291. We review unpreserved objections to jury instructions for plain error, United States v. Ozcelik, 527 F.3d 88, 96 (3d Cir. 2008), but when objections are preserved we apply an abuse-of-discretion standard to our review of the wording of instructions and the refusal to adopt specific language suggested by the parties. United States v. Jimenez, 513 F.3d 62, 74 (3d Cir. 2008). 1

III.

Mostler first argues that the District Court's jury instruction on the issue of willfulness was confusing as a whole, although he concedes that no single statement by the District Court was incorrect. The District Court stated as follows:

The third element the Government must prove beyond
a reasonable doubt is that the defendant acted willfully.
Willfully means a voluntary and intentional violation
of a known legal duty. . . . Defendant's conduct
was not willful if he acted through negligence or
a mistake or accident or due to a good faith misunderstanding
of the requirements of the law. A good faith belief
is one that is honestly and genuinely held. A good
faith misunderstanding of the law or a good faith
belief that one is not violating the law negates
willfulness, whether or not the claimed belief or
misunderstanding is objectively reasonable. A defendant's
views about the validity of the tax statutes are
irrelevant to the issue of willfulness and need not
be considered by the jury. However, mere disagreement
with the law or belief that the tax laws are unconstitutional
or otherwise invalid does not constitute a good faith
misunderstanding of the requirements of law. All
persons have a duty to obey the law whether or not
they agree with it. Any claim that the tax laws are
invalid, unconstitutional, or inapplicable is incorrect
as a matter of law.

Appendix ("App.") at 425-26. Mostler asserts that this instruction left the jury confused because although the issue of whether the tax laws actually did apply to him is irrelevant for the jury, the issue of whether he believed that the tax laws applied to him is at the heart of his defense. He argues that a reasonable juror easily could have concluded from this instruction that she was required to convict even if Mostler had a good faith misunderstanding of the mandatory nature of the tax laws. This interpretation would effectively remove Mostler's ability to present his good faith defense, as his misunderstanding was related to the applicability of the tax system as a whole rather than to any specific provision. In this way, Mostler argues that the District Court's instructions allowed the jury to find the element of willfulness despite also finding that the failure to pay was the result of a good faith misunderstanding.

We see no error in the District Court's instructions to the jury. 2 Mostler did not have a good faith misunderstanding about any specific provision of the tax code or its applicability to him; instead, he merely claims to have a good faith misunderstanding about the mandatory nature of the federal income tax. This alleged misunderstanding, however, is predicated on his belief that a mandatory federal income tax is unconstitutional. To uphold Mostler's view of the good faith defense would, therefore, allow a back door for the defense that the tax statutes are unconstitutional, which was explicitly foreclosed by the Supreme Court's decision in Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991). Because of this, the applicability of the good faith defense was appropriately limited to true misunderstandings rather than extended to broad excuses for refusal to pay taxes. The District Court's instructions were proper, and we see no grounds for vacating Mostler's conviction based on the jury charge.

Mostler then argues that the District Court erred in its answer to the question asked by the jury during its deliberation. The jury sent a note to the District Court stating "Please provide more clarity regarding a good faith belief." App. 478. Defense counsel requested that the jury be given the Third Circuit's model instruction on the good faith defense, and also requested that the jury be reminded that the Government bore the burden of proof on all elements of the charged offense. App. 468-69. The District Court refused both of these requests and instead responded to the jury by stating:

I think we have tried as best we could to articulate
a good faith belief on Page 22. The lawyers argued
and spent most of their time in their summations
today discussing good faith or willfulness, which
is obviously the related concept.

I think I'm going to ask you to go back and discuss
further Page 22, and, if you feel that there's something
more specific that you're seeking, please advise
me but I think you're going to have to use your wisdom
of 12 jurors to discuss and analyze what has been
presented to you and bring to bear your thoughts
and analysis just as has been set forth in the charge.
You might want to reread the charge.

So, thank you very much and, if you would like to
be more specific, you may be so. Thank you.

App. 469-70.

Again, we find no error in the District Court's response. Given the extremely broad and vague question, we are not prepared to state that the District Court abused its discretion in refusing to provide additional extensive instructions on the background of the good faith defense. This is especially true given that Mostler contends that the instructions were already overly long and complicated. The District Court made clear that the issue of good faith was already covered in a particular part of the jury charge, and invited the jury to ask a more specific question if it still needed further clarification. This decision was well within its discretion.

IV.

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

FOOTNOTES:

/1/ Although the parties disagree about whether the objections here were unpreserved, we believe that Mostler has not met the standard for preserving objections to jury instructions that is clearly set forth by this Court's precedent. See, e.g., United States v. Jake, 281 F.3d 123, 130 (3d Cir. 2002) ("[A]n objection must . . . be sufficiently precise to allow the trial court to address the concerns raised in the objection."). Mostler never objected to the instructions given, but, instead, merely asked that additional language be included in these instructions. Further, the District Court did add language to attempt to alleviate Mostler's concerns, and Mostler did not in any way communicate to the District Court that this additional language was insufficient. In sum, the District Court had no way of knowing that Mostler disagreed with the language of the instruction actually provided to the jury, and his actions, therefore, cannot be sufficient to preserve his objections to the formal instructions that were given.

In regard to the answer to the jury's question, on the other hand, Mostler clearly communicated to the District Court that he believed that further instruction was necessary and that the District Court's answer was insufficient, thereby preserving his objection. For these reasons, we will review the District Court's initial instructions for plain error, but will review its answer to the jury's question for abuse of discretion.

/2/ It is worth noting that the Government argues that Mostler has waived any objection to the jury instructions under the "invited error" doctrine. Ozcelik, 527 F.3d at 97 n.6 (finding objections to jury instructions waived because the objecting party had previously made a joint motion to adopt those instructions); United States v. Stewart, 185 F.3d 112, 127 (3d Cir. 1999) (stating that objections to jury instructions are waived in situations where the instructions given were the result of the complaining party's objection to the original proposed jury instructions); United States v. W. Indies Transp., Inc., 127 F.3d 299, 311 (3d Cir. 1997) (noting that failure to include a specific element in a party's requested jury instructions waives that party's ability to object to the provided jury instructions for failing to include that element). In this case, however, Mostler did not fail to request the instruction that he desired, did not suggest the language of the instruction actually given, and did not cause the final language through his objection. Instead, he merely participated in a charge conference at which some of his requested instructions were denied, and he did not object to the District Court's final instructions. Although this does cause us to review only for plain error, it is insufficient for us to find that any objection is waived through the doctrine of invited error.

[fortinbras]

The release date on this decision is wrong. It should be Feb 2011.

The issue of willfulness in tax evasion has been so thoroughly discussed over the years that, by now, it is pretty well settle.

Willfulness means a deliberate decision not to file a tax return or pay taxes. The willfulness goes into that decision. It does not require more -- such as evidence of specific fraudulent intent.

Willfulness might be negated if, for example, the defendant had been sick as a dog for a substantial time before and after the tax filing date, if his home had been swept away by a hurricane, or some other (serious) calamity had disabled or distracted him from doing the tax paperwork. It might also be negated if the tax involved (or the revenue being taxed) were one of those relatively few categories where even a conscientious taxpayer might doubt that taxes apply. And it generally requires that the defendant otherwise show him to be conscientious about paying taxes. The instances where courts have favored the defendants in this are few.

But Mostler doesn't fall into these limited descriptions. He deliberately falsified information on his W-4 form to prevent the collection of payroll deductions. He had already paid taxes so he knew what he was supposed to do, then he didn't file a return or pay taxes for six years -- there's only so many times that your house can be washed out to sea. The govt would probably have gone much easier on him if he hadn't filed dishonest W-4 forms; that way the govt would be holding pretty much a maximum of his tax payment, before he could file a return claiming deductions and exemptions.

As for writing letters to the IRS demanding that they answer specific questions before he'd pay his taxes: This hasn't worked. Checking the organization chart for the IRS, I do not find an Office for Teaching Tax Law to a Million Nitwits Over and Over. The courts have held that, if the IRS sends you instructions that you are supposed to be doing such-and-such, you'd better do it; later you and your tax lawyer might be able to pry some of that money back. Of course, since Mostler threw away all the mail from the IRS, he wasn't serious about the questions he was asking.