United States v. Russell

USCA1 Opinion

          July 20, 1993
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ___________________


          No. 91-2186

            


                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                 WILLIAM S. RUSSELL,

                                Defendant, Appellant.


                                  __________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE


                       [Hon. Shane Devine, U.S. District Judge]
                                           ___________________

                                 ___________________

                                        Before

                               Selya, Boudin and Stahl,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ___________________

               William S. Russell on brief pro se.
               __________________
               Michael L.  Paup, Acting Assistant Attorney  General, Robert
               ________________                                      ______
          E. Lindsay,  Alan Hechtkopf  and Karen  M. Quesnel,  Tax Division
          __________   ______________      _________________
          Department of Justice, on brief for appellee.


                                  __________________

                                  __________________



















                 Per Curiam.  The appellant, William  S. Russell, owned a
                 __________

            business in  New Hampshire.  He  and his wife  took no salary

            from the business, but they used substantial amounts of money

            from corporate  accounts  to  pay  their  personal  expenses,

            failed  to declare the payments as income, and failed to file

            individual and corporate income tax returns.  Russell pleaded

            guilty  to  one count  of  conspiracy to  defraud  the United

            States,  18  U.S.C.    371, and  three  counts of  income tax

            evasion, 26  U.S.C.   7201, and received a twenty-seven month

            prison sentence.

                 Russell, who  was  represented  by  counsel  before  the

            district court  but appears  pro se here,  challenges neither
                                         ______

            his plea nor his sentence, but argues that the indictment was

            "false and  fraudulent" because  it charged him  with evading

            the income tax  by, among  other things, failing  to file  an

            income  tax return.  According  to Russell, the indictment is

            therefore contradictory because without a return the Internal

            Revenue  Service cannot  make a  valid assessment,  without a

            valid assessment there can  be no tax liability,  and without

            liability there can be no evasion.

                 This  is incorrect.  The crime of income tax evasion has

            three  elements:  (1) willfulness,  (2)  existence  of a  tax

            deficiency,  and  (3)  an  affirmative  act  constituting  an

            evasion or attempted evasion  of the tax.  Sansone  v. United
                                                       _______     ______

            States, 380 U.S. 343,  351 (1965).  A tax  deficiency "exists
            ______



                                         -2-















            from the date  a return is to  be filed and  . . . arises  by

            operation  of  law when  the return  is  not filed."   United
                                                                   ______

            States v. Hogan, 861 F.2d 312,  315 (1st Cir. 1988).  As long
            ______    _____

            as the  tax is  "due  and owing"  in this  manner, no  formal

            assessment is necessary.  Id.
                                      ___

                 Russell's  other arguments  are  equally without  merit.

            First, he was required by statute to make a return, 26 U.S.C.

              6012, and pay the tax owed.  26 U.S.C.   6151.  Second, the

            requirement that he file  a return did not violate  the Self-

            Incrimination  Clause of  the  Fifth Amendment.   See  United
                                                              ___  ______

            States  v. Sullivan, 274  U.S. 259, 263-64  (1927).  Finally,
            ______     ________

            the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction, 18 U.S.C.

               3231,  as  well  as "territorial"  jurisdiction  over  the

            prosecution.  See United  States v. Lussier, 929 F.2d  25, 27
                          ___ ______________    _______

            (1st Cir. 1991) (per curiam).

                 Affirmed.
                 _________





















                                         -3-