[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-303160-105":53,"doc-detail-303160-en":127},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":120,"head_meta":122,"extra_data":124,"updated_unix":126},105,"en","order-denying-defendants-motion-for-judgment-of-acquittal","ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL","","Order from the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, denying the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal after a jury returned guilty verdicts on four counts of federal income tax evasion. The court evaluates arguments under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(c)(2), viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the government. It addresses proof of willfulness, affirmative acts constituting evasion or attempted evasion, and the claimed failure to prove a tax deficiency, among other asserted grounds.",{"@graph":63,"@context":119},[64,80,102],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":41,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/order-denying-defendants-motion-for-judgment-of-acquittal/303160/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/order-denying-defendants-motion-for-judgment-of-acquittal/303160.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"\tWilliam","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-05","2026-09-19",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":101},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",6,{"@type":103,"mainEntity":104},"FAQPage",[105,111,115],{"name":106,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":108},"What motion did the court deny, and what was the procedural posture?","Question",{"text":109,"@type":110},"The court denied the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal after the jury returned guilty verdicts on four counts of federal income tax evasion. The court considered the motion under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(c)(2).","Answer",{"name":112,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":113},"How did the court address the requirement to prove “willfullness” for tax evasion?",{"text":114,"@type":110},"The court stated the government must prove willfulness, tax deficiency, and an affirmative evasion act. It rejected arguments that duty to pay income tax and knowledge were not proven, citing prior duties and evidence presented at trial.",{"name":116,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":117},"What standard did the court use for evaluating the sufficiency arguments after a guilty verdict?",{"text":118,"@type":110},"The court viewed the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the government. It did not weigh evidence or judge witness credibility.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":121,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":123,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":125,"site_id":56},303160,1790207898,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":128},{"doc_id":125,"user_id":129,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":130,"doc_module":9,"category_id":40,"category_name":41,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":131,"file_id":132,"file_url":133,"file_type":134,"file_size":135,"view_count":101,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":79,"language":136,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":140,"read_time":73},5909887254083,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_276721f389ce27ea32af1340a28f341c","5:06-cr-20582-JCO-MKM Doc \\# 60 Filed 07/28/08 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 434  \nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  \nEASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN  \nSOUTHERN DIVISION  \nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA  \nPlaintiff, Case No. 06-20582  \nv. Hon. John Corbett O’Meara  \nMICHAEL BURT  \nDefendant.  \n /  \nORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL  \nBefore the court is Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal, filed on June 10, 2008. An answer was filed by the government on July 23, 2008. For the reasons stated below, this court denies the motion for judgment of acquittal.  \nFACTUAL BACKGROUND  \nOn November 14, 2006, a federal grand jury indicted Defendant Michael Burt on four counts of federal income tax evasion, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201 (section 7201) . An arraignment on the charges was completed on March 1, 2007. Defendant went to trial on the charges on May 13, 2008, and a jury returned guilty verdicts on each count on May 22, 2008. Defendant now argues pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29, that acquittal is necessary for the following reasons: (1) the government failed to prove the element of“wilfullness”; (2) the government failed to prove the affirmative acts alleged in the indictment; (3) there was no evidence proving the existence of a tax deficiency; (4) the government failed to negate Defendant’s good faith reliance on the Paperwork Reduction Act; and (5) the government failed to negate Defendant’s good faith belief that he was not liable for the income tax.  \nLAW AND ANALYSIS  \nFed. R. Crim. P. 29 (c)(2) states that “[i]f the jury has returned a guilty verdict, the court may set aside the verdict and enter an acquittal.” In ruling on this motion, the court views the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the government. United States v. Reed, 821 F.2d 322, 324-25 (6th Cir. 1987) . In doing so, the court does not weigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses presented to the jury. United States v. Talley, 164 F.3d 989, 996 (6th Cir. 1999) .  \n5:06-cr-20582-JCO-MKM Doc \\# 60 Filed 07/28/08 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 435  \n1. Proving The Element Of Willfullness  \nIn prosecuting tax evasion, the government must prove: (1) willfullness; (2) the existence of a tax deficiency ; and (3) an affirmative act constituting an evasion or attempted evasion of the tax. United States v. Spine, 945 F.2d 143, 149 (6th Cir. 1991) . Defendant Burt raises several arguments as to whether the government proved the “willfulness” element of tax evasion. First, he contends that the government failed to prove that a specific law imposed a duty on him to pay income tax. This argument was raised previously by Defendant, and for the same reasons stated in the record, the court again affirms that a specific law did indeed impose a duty on Defendant Burt to pay income tax.  \nSecond, Defendant Burt contends that the government failed to prove Burt had actual knowledge of the provision that required him to pay income tax or that the duty to pay income tax was required by law. Aside from the fact that the obligation to pay income tax is etched into the common conscience of the American public, the evidence presented to the jury makes it extremely difficult to believe that Defendant Burt did not know that he was under a duty to pay income tax. Specifically, his employment put him in regular contact with taxation officials and Burt had previously filed his own income tax returns. See United States v. Guidry, 199 F.3d 1150, 1157-58 (10th Cir. 1999); United States v. Klausner, 80 F.3d 55, 63 (2nd Cir. 1996) .  \nFinally, Defendant contends that the government failed to prove that he voluntarily and intentionally violated his duty to pay income tax. The court rejects part of this contention because it assumes that the government did not prove there was a law imposing the duty to pay income tax or that Defendant Burt know of the duty. The second part of this contention argues that Defendant Burt did not have information to provide on","cbCaivbZT1XAOiD9","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaivbZT1XAOiD9","pdf",114459,"English","# Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal\n## Factual Background\n## Law and Analysis\n## Proving The Element Of Willfullness\n## Failure To Prove An Affirmative Act\n## Failure To Prove A Tax Deficiency","[{\"question\":\"What motion did the court deny, and what was the procedural posture?\",\"answer\":\"The court denied the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal after the jury returned guilty verdicts on four counts of federal income tax evasion. The court considered the motion under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(c)(2).\"},{\"question\":\"How did the court address the requirement to prove “willfullness” for tax evasion?\",\"answer\":\"The court stated the government must prove willfulness, tax deficiency, and an affirmative evasion act. It rejected arguments that duty to pay income tax and knowledge were not proven, citing prior duties and evidence presented at trial.\"},{\"question\":\"What standard did the court use for evaluating the sufficiency arguments after a guilty verdict?\",\"answer\":\"The court viewed the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the government. It did not weigh evidence or judge witness credibility.\"}]","ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL | PDF",1789800146]