United States v. Luttrell

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Defendant was tried and convicted of failure to file income tax returns for the years 1974 and 1975 in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203. At trial the government introduced proof that defendant filed a tax return for 1970, but not 1971 and 1972. A return for 1973 was filed after the investigation started. The government also introduced proof that defendant did not file timely income tax returns for the years 1976, 1977, and 1978. The single claim raised by defendant in this direct criminal appeal is that the district court erred in admitting evidence of defendant’s failure to timely file tax returns in three years subsequent to the years involved in the charges.

¶6As admitted by defendant, evidence of prior failure to file tax returns has been admitted in several cases. See, e. g., United States v. Thompson, 513 F.2d 577, 579 (8th Cir. 1975); United States v. Johnson, 386 F.2d 630, 631 (3d Cir. 1967). And similar evidence of subsequent failure to file was approved in United States v. Farris, 517 F.2d 226, 229 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 892, 96 S.Ct. 189, 46 L.Ed.2d 123 (1975). See also United States v. Stout, 601 F.2d 325, 329 (7th Cir. 1979). Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides in part that evidence of other acts may be admissible to prove “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident”;1 and Rule 406 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides evidence of a person’s habits may be admitted. Clearly, there was no abuse of discretion in the district court’s admission of evidence regarding defendant’s income tax filings, either for the years preceding or following the years on which his conviction was based. And the conviction is affirmed.