Michael D. Beiter - sovrun tax scammer convicted

[Judge Roy Bean]

http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida ... cheme.html

Michael D. Beiter Jr. was charged with selling at least 100 tax packages, which was premised on the idea that individuals are “sovereigns” who could declare their independence from their tax obligations

[Unidyne]

http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida ... cheme.html

Michael D. Beiter Jr. was charged with selling at least 100 tax packages, which was premised on the idea that individuals are “sovereigns” who could declare their independence from their tax obligations

How soon before his followers start proclaiming that he's a "political prisoner" like Irwin Schiff's followers do?

[ArthurWankspittle]

He is facing up to 168 years? Ouch! Even a tenth of that would be heavy wouldn't it? Or is this normal for Florida?

[Judge Roy Bean]

It's a Federal case so nothing in Florida law applies to the sentencing.

Without knowing more about him or the case, it's hard to say if there are any aggravating or mitigating factors but he will undoubtedly be behind bars with no opportunity for parole for a very, very long time.

[LPC]

Conviction affirmed. No mention of what sentence was imposed.

United States v. Michael D. Beiter Jr., No. 11-10528 (11th Cir. 10/11/11)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL D. BEITER, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

Non-Argument Calendar

D.C. Docket No. 0:09-cr-60202-JIC-1

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida

(October 11, 2011)

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Michael David Beiter, Jr., appeals his convictions for attempting to interfere with the administration of the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"), in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7212; tax evasion, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201; and knowingly passing or offering fictitious financial instruments, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 514. His appeal presents one issue: "Whether the admission in evidence of a 63-page document entitled 'The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments,' to refute Beiter's good faith defense, was reversible error, because there was no evidence that Beiter ever saw or read this document, in whole or in part." Appellants Br. at 2.

Beiter argues that Federal Rule of Evidence 403 precluded the admission of this document into evidence because it lacked any probative value and was grossly prejudicial because it completely eviscerated his good-faith-belief defense that the payment of taxes was voluntary.

We generally review a district court's evidentiary rulings for a clear abuse of discretion. United States v. Tinoco, 304 F.3d 1088, 1119 (11th Cir. 2002). Even where the district court has abused its discretion, evidentiary and other non-constitutional errors are not grounds for reversal absent a "reasonable likelihood that they affected the defendant's substantial rights." United States v. Mendez, 117 F.3d 480, 486 (11th Cir. 1997). The Government bears the burden of establishing that an error is harmless. United States v. Sweat, 555 F.3d 1364, 1367 (11th Cir. 2009). "Reversal is warranted only if the error resulted in actual prejudice because it had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict." United States v. Phaknikone, 605 F.3d 1099, 1109 (11th Cir.) (internal quotations omitted), cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 643 (2010). We review the trial record in its entirety when making the determination of harmless error. Id. (citation omitted).

Federal Rule of Evidence 402 states that "[a]ll relevant evidence is admissible." "'Relevant evidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." Fed. R. Evid. 401. However, as Rule 403 provides, relevant evidence "may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." "The term 'unfair prejudice,' as to a criminal defendant, speaks to the capacity of some concededly relevant evidence to lure the factfinder into declaring guilt on a ground different from proof specific to the offense charged." Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 180, 117 S.Ct. 644, 650, 136 L.Ed.2d 574 (1997). "While it is true that all evidence which tends to establish the guilt of a defendant is, in one sense, prejudicial to the defendant, . . . that does not mean that such evidence should be excluded." United States v. Norton, 867 F.2d 1354, 1362 (11th Cir. 1989) (citation and internal alterations omitted).

Section 7212 of Title 26 of the U.S. Code requires the Government to establish that a defendant corruptly obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the due administration of the Internal Revenue Code. 26 U.S.C. 7212(a); United States v. Popkin, 943 F.2d 1535, 1535-36 (11th Cir. 1991). To obtain a conviction for tax evasion under 26 U.S.C. § 7201, the Government must prove three elements: willfulness, the existence of a tax deficiency, and an affirmative act constituting evasion or attempted evasion. United States v. Callahan, 588 F.2d 1078, 1081 (5th Cir. 1979) (quotation omitted). It is a criminal violation to knowingly pass, utter, present, offer, broker, issue, or sell a false or fictitious instrument or document issued under the authority of a state or federal government entity. 18 U.S.C. § 514.

In United States v. Cheek, 498 U.S. 192, 201, 203, 111 S.Ct. 604, 610-11, 112 L.Ed.2d 617 (1991), the Supreme Court held that the Seventh Circuit erred in holding that a good-faith misunderstanding of tax law must be objectively reasonable "if it is to be considered as possibly negating the Government's evidence purporting to show a defendant's awareness of the legal duty at issue." The Court noted, however, that "the more unreasonable the asserted beliefs or misunderstandings are, the more likely the jury will consider them to be nothing more than simple disagreement with known legal duties imposed by the tax laws and will find that the Government has carried its burden of proving knowledge." Id. at 203-04, 111 S.Ct. at 611-12.

In United States v. Morris, we reversed the defendants' convictions for filing false income tax returns, holding that the district court erred when it failed to give a good-faith-defense instruction and material prejudice occurred. 20 F.3d 1111, 1113-14, 1118 (11th Cir. 1994). We noted that the Government was required to negate "a defendant's claim of ignorance of the law or a claim that because of a misunderstanding of the law, he had a good-faith belief that he was not violating any of the provisions of the tax laws." Id. at 1115.

In this case, the evidence was more than adequate to support a jury finding of guilt on the charges contained in the indictment. Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the IRS publication into evidence at trial because the document was relevant to the credibility of Beiter's good-faith defense regarding the nature of tax laws. The probative value of the publication was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice because the document was important to show that the IRS had attempted to furnish requested information to Beiter and address many of his arguments regarding the payment of taxes. Even if we were to assume that the court abused its discretion, any error was harmless because it did not affect Beiter's substantial rights.

AFFIRMED.

[.]

Oops.

[wserra]

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL D. BEITER, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
...
His appeal presents one issue: "Whether the admission in evidence of a 63-page document entitled 'The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments,' to refute Beiter's good faith defense, was reversible error, because there was no evidence that Beiter ever saw or read this document, in whole or in part."
...
The probative value of the publication was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice because the document was important to show that the IRS had attempted to furnish requested information to Beiter and address many of his arguments regarding the payment of taxes.

Who cares whether "the IRS had attempted to furnish requested information to Beiter and address many of his arguments regarding the payment of taxes"? Are the IRS' attempts an element of the crime? If some creative TP comes up with some nonsense that "Frivolous Tax Arguments" doesn't address, can s/he offer it to show that "the IRS had not attempted to furnish requested information to Beiter and address many of his arguments regarding the payment of taxes"? Assuming the absence of proof that Beiter ever saw it, I see no conceivable relevance.

Even if we were to assume that the court abused its discretion, any error was harmless

Ah. It would be a lot more honest to say that up front.

[Demosthenes]

Press Release
BROWARD MAN SENTENCED TO 10 YEARS IN TAX FRAUD SCHEME
January 28, 2011
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Wifredo A. Ferrer, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, John A. DiCicco, Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Tax Division, and Daniel W. Auer, Special Agent in Charge, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Criminal Investigation Division, announced that defendant Michael D. Beiter, Jr., of Broward County, Florida, was sentenced to 10 years’ incarceration, followed by 5 years of supervised release after having been convicted by a Fort Lauderdale jury of tax and other charges. On August 30, 2010, after a six day trial, the jury found Beiter guilty of corruptly impeding the IRS, sending fictitious financial instruments to creditors, and helping one of his clients evade federal income tax.

According to court documents and testimony during the trial, Beiter marketed a debt elimination and abusive tax scheme. The scheme was premised on the idea that individuals are sovereigns who can declare their independence from ordinary obligations, such as paying creditors and federal income taxes. Beiter promoted the sale of abusive tax packages involving purportedly non-taxable pure trusts. Beiter sold at least 100 of these packages. One of his clients used his tax elimination package to avoid paying more than $900,000 in federal income tax.

According to evidence presented a trial, the defendant filed tax returns with the IRS for tax years 2004, 2005, and 2006 reporting zero income and taxes, despite the fact that he had net taxable income in excess of $1,800,000. Beiter also opened a number of bank and stock trading accounts with bogus taxpayer identification numbers. The evidence at trial also established that Beiter attempted to intimidate IRS employees by contacting them at their homes.

U.S. Attorney Wifredo Ferrer stated, “Tax evasion is a serious crime that impacts all members of society, young and old, rich and poor. The United States Attorney's Office stands committed to prosecuting individuals involved in tax related crimes.”

“We continue to see the negative consequences of participating in abusive trusts schemes,” said Daniel W. Auer, Special Agent in Charge of IRS - Criminal Investigation Division, Miami Field Office. “Today's sentence sends a positive message to honest taxpayers and further exhibits that the IRS and U.S. Attorney s Office are duty bound to protect the integrity of the U.S. tax administration system, and to make sure everyone complies with their tax obligations.”

Mr. Ferrer commended the investigative efforts of the IRS Criminal Investigation Division, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and the Broward Sheriff’s Office, as well as Assistant U.S. Attorneys Bertha R. Mitrani and John Gonsoulin and Tax Division Trial Attorney Jed Silversmith, who are prosecuting the case.

A copy of this press release may be found on the website of the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida at http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/fls. Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at http://www.flsd.uscourts.gov or on http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov.

Technical comments about this website can be e-mailed to the Webmaster. PLEASE NOTE: The United States Attorney's Office does not respond to non-technical inquiries made to this website. If you wish to make a request for information, you may contact our office at 305-961-9001, or you may send a written inquiry to the United States Attorney's Office, Southern District of Florida, 99 NE 4th Street, Miami, Fl. 33132.

[wserra]

Who cares whether "the IRS had attempted to furnish requested information to Beiter and address many of his arguments regarding the payment of taxes"?

OK, I have to back off something I wrote earlier today. One could take the above language to mean that Beiter was one of the morons who writes the IRS a "show me the law" letter, and that the IRS responded with the "Frivolous Tax Arguments" booklet. If that is the case then, even absent proof Beiter actually saw it, it is admissible due to the presumption that he received it (especially if he asked for it). If that's what happened, I owe the Eleventh Circuit an apology - not that they would lose sleep either way.

Even though I'm long removed from that world, anyone who ever did substantial federal criminal defense sees red at the words "harmless error". It sometimes seems as though every goddam thing is harmless, up to the judge telling the jury that it's their duty as patriotic Americans to convict.

[JamesVincent]

. It sometimes seems as though every goddam thing is harmless, up to the judge telling the jury that it's their duty as patriotic Americans to convict.

Amen to that. It apparently is harmless to curse and lie in court and get caught doing it by the judge, as some of my recent experiences have noted.

[fortinbras]

Beiter may wish to claim (or at least hint) that he never read the IRS booklet "The Truth about Frivolous Tax Arguments" but the booklet was worked up by the IRS (and occasionally updated) in response to a law enacted in December 2006 - Public Law 108-432 - creating a new 26 USC § 6702, to the effect that the IRS would have such a compilation of dead-and-buried tax arguments and make the same readily available, especially sending it to people who were currently presenting any such arguments to the IRS, to try to discourage people from repeating the mistakes. The booklet is also available to everyone as a PDF on the internet, so one can get it without any delay and without tipping off the IRS.

It is perfectly reasonable to suppose that someone claiming - as Beiter did - to have done extensive research in tax law, etc. etc., had already encountered this ubiquitous document.

[.]

It sometimes seems as though every goddam thing is harmless, up to the judge telling the jury that it's their duty as patriotic Americans to convict.

I'd bet money that you meant "god-damned thing " and "up to and including."

I take your point that the routine opinion of the average trial bench is that almost everything qualifies as harmless error. Think maybe the court wound up in the right place by accident because the defendant was a total moron begging for everything that he wound up getting?

[Kestrel]

If some creative TP comes up with some nonsense that "Frivolous Tax Arguments" doesn't address, can s/he offer it to show that "the IRS had not attempted to furnish requested information to Beiter and address many of his arguments regarding the payment of taxes"?

I know someone else who thinks he can succeed with that tactic.

THE REAL TRUTH ABOUT THE IRS’S “TRUTH” ABOUT “FRIVOLOUS” TAX ARGUMENTS
To begin with there are some arguments the IRS regularly labels as “frivolous” that are not included in its official list of “frivolous” arguments. First and foremost among the Tax Honesty Movement’s objections is its contention that [insert TP gibberish here] ...

THAT ISSUE IS NOT ON THE IRS’S OFFICIAL LIST OF “FRIVOLOUS” ARGUMENTS!!
THUS THE IRS IS ADMITTING NOT ONLY THAT IT IS NOT A “FRIVOLOUS” ARGUMENT
BUT ALSO THAT IT HAS NO AUTHORITY REFUTING THE ARGUMENT!!

We'll see how well that plays out in court. Soon, I hope.

[LPC]

One could take the above language to mean that Beiter was one of the morons who writes the IRS a "show me the law" letter, and that the IRS responded with the "Frivolous Tax Arguments" booklet. If that is the case then, even absent proof Beiter actually saw it, it is admissible due to the presumption that he received it (especially if he asked for it).

If Beiter claimed to have done "research," and the judge gave a "willful blindness" instruction, then the IRS booklet might be relevant to show that there was easily accessible information that refuted Beiter's beliefs, and that Beiter never found that information because he chose not to look for it.

Perhaps that's what the 11th Circuit *meant* to say.

(And this is one of those cases where I can see good reason to order that the opinion *not* be published.)

[Famspear]

THAT ISSUE IS NOT ON THE IRS’S OFFICIAL LIST OF “FRIVOLOUS” ARGUMENTS!! THUS THE IRS IS ADMITTING NOT ONLY THAT IT IS NOT A “FRIVOLOUS” ARGUMENT BUT ALSO THAT IT HAS NO AUTHORITY REFUTING THE ARGUMENT!!

Good grief, TommyBoy.... Is this what passes for legal analysis in your office?



....I claim that the IRS didn't refute precisely the argument I want them to refute using the words I used in juuuust the right way.....



TommyBoy's legal reasoning is sounding a bit like that of the Haughty Hendrickson, the Fabulous Felon, the Arrogant Amateur, the Pontificating Peter-Prisoner.

TommyBoy, you were probably a good lawyer at one time.

What happened?

[wserra]

I take your point that the routine opinion of the average trial bench is that almost everything qualifies as harmless error.

Appellate bench. Other than that, yes, that's the point.

Think maybe the court wound up in the right place by accident because the defendant was a total moron begging for everything that he wound up getting?

I don't think it was an accident. Too often appellate courts feel that "the defendant was a total moron begging for everything that he wound up getting", but of course can't say it like that. So instead they say "harmless error". I don't recall the mandate of an appellate court to include "wind up in the right place".

One case of mine in particular: trial judge gave an instruction that permitted the jury to reach a verdict in an improper manner (details complicated; trust me). I object, request various measures that would verify proper verdict. Trial judge refuses, jury convicts. Rather than dealing with issue, appellate court cites volume of evidence. Cognitive dissonance.

[wserra]

Perhaps that's what the 11th Circuit *meant* to say.

Damn, Dan, you're charitable this evening.

[notorial dissent]

It is perfectly reasonable to suppose that someone claiming - as Beiter did - to have done extensive research in tax law, etc. etc., had already encountered this ubiquitous document.

Is that by any chance like unto Peter "Blowhard" Henderson's exhaustive, comprehensive, and all encompassing research in to the tax laws? Perhaps? Maybe? Perchance?

[Demosthenes]

Even though I'm long removed from that world, anyone who ever did substantial federal criminal defense sees red at the words "harmless error".

You'll enjoy this, Wes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEkuORtuOlY

[wserra]

That's one of the funniest videos I've seen in a while.

Thanks.