US v. Kevin Witasick
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:07-cr-00030-jlk Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998657923].. [10-4593]
Appeal: 10-4593
Document: 56
Date Filed: 08/18/2011
Page: 1 of 12
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4593
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KEVIN JOHN WITASICK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Danville.
Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (4:07-cr-00030-jlk)
Submitted:
July 29, 2011
Decided:
August 18, 2011
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerald C. Thompson, Tempe, Arizona, for Appellant.
Frank P.
Cihlar, Gregory Victor Davis, Tax Division, DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Timothy J. Heaphy, United States
Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 10-4593
Document: 56
Date Filed: 08/18/2011
Page: 2 of 12
PER CURIAM:
Kevin
fifteen-month
John
Witasick
sentence
for
appeals
two
his
counts
of
conviction
tax
evasion
and
in
violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201 (2006), two counts of tax perjury
in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) (2006), one count of failure
to file a tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203 (2006) and
one count of health care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347
(2006).
He
argues
that
insufficient
evidence
supported
his
convictions and that the trial on the tax counts was infected by
prosecutorial misconduct.
We affirm.
Briefly, the Government alleged that Witasick, who was
an
attorney
in
the
Arizona
firm
of
Witasick,
Parker,
and
Thompson before moving to Virginia in 1999, owned Stoneleigh, a
historic
property
in
Stanleytown,
Virginia.
While
Witasick
operated an office of the Arizona firm out of Stoneleigh, he
claimed, on his 1999 tax return, that 75% of the (considerable)
funds
he
spent
remodeling
and
deductable as business expenses.
of the expenses were deductable.
2001.
renovating
Stoneleigh
were
In 2000, he claimed that 100%
He filed no tax return in
The resulting tax loss alleged by the Government was over
$100,000.
At
Stoneleigh’s
the
same
time,
groundskeeper
Witasick
(and
2
falsely
Witasick’s
claimed
personal
that
trainer)
Appeal: 10-4593
Document: 56
Date Filed: 08/18/2011
Page: 3 of 12
Zeke Ca-stle 1 was the property manager of his firm’s Virginia
office, and listed Ca-stle as an employee on his firm’s group
health insurance plan.
I.
Insufficient Evidence (Tax Charges)
Witasick
first
argues
that
insufficient
evidence
supported his convictions for tax evasion, filing a false tax
return, and failure to file.
He argues that he was entitled to
rely on the advice of his accountant and his attorney; in the
alternative, he alleges that the Government adduced no evidence
of tax loss.
We review de novo challenges to the sufficiency of the
evidence supporting a jury verdict.
F.3d 433, 440 (4th Cir. 2007).
sufficiency
of
the
evidence
United States v. Kelly, 510
“A defendant challenging the
faces
a
heavy
burden.”
States v. Foster, 507 F.3d 233, 245 (4th Cir. 2007).
United
We review
a sufficiency of the evidence challenge by determining “whether,
after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the
essential
elements
United
States v.
of
the
crime
Collins,
1
beyond
412
a
reasonable
F.3d
Although the parties use the spelling
briefs, we have used the spelling Ca-stle
identified himself during the trial.
3
515,
doubt.”
519
Castle in the
gave when he
Appeal: 10-4593
Document: 56
Date Filed: 08/18/2011
Page: 4 of 12
(4th Cir. 2005)(quoting United States v. Fisher, 912 F.2d 728,
730 (4th Cir. 1990)).
We review both direct and circumstantial
evidence, and accord the government all reasonable inferences
from the facts shown to those sought to be established.
States
v.
Harvey,
532
F.3d
326,
333
United
(4th Cir. 2008).
In
reviewing for sufficiency of the evidence, we do not review the
credibility of the witnesses, and assume that the jury resolved
all contradictions in the testimony in favor of the government.
Kelly, 510 F.3d at 440.
We will uphold the jury’s verdict if
substantial evidence supports it, and will reverse only in those
rare cases of clear failure by the prosecution.
Foster, 507
F.3d at 244-45.
In order to establish a violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201
(2006), the Government must prove that Witasick acted willfully
and “committed an affirmative act that constituted an attempted
evasion of tax payments” and, as a result, “a substantial tax
deficiency existed.”
(4th Cir. 1997).
United States v. Wilson, 118 F.3d 228, 236
Moreover, in order to obtain a conviction for
filing false tax returns and failing to file tax returns, the
Government
must
willful.
See
(4th Cir. 1996)
similarly
United
(filing
prove
States
false
that
v.
tax
Witasick’s
Aramony,
88
returns);
actions
F.3d
United
1369,
were
1382
States
v.
Ostendorff, 371 F.2d 729, 730 (4th Cir. 1967) (failing to file
tax returns).
4
Appeal: 10-4593
Document: 56
Date Filed: 08/18/2011
Willfulness,
in
this
Page: 5 of 12
context,
means
intentional violation of a known legal duty.”
States,
498
U.S.
192,
201
(1991)(quoting
Bishop, 412 U.S. 346, 360 (1973)).
a
“voluntary,
Cheek v. United
United
States
v.
A belief, in good faith,
that one has complied with the tax laws negates willfulness and
is therefore a defense, even if the belief is unreasonable.
See
id. at 201-02.
In other words, the Government must demonstrate
that
did
Witasick
not
have
a
subjective
belief,
however
irrational or unreasonable, that he was compliant with tax laws.
“Good
faith
reliance
on
a
qualified
accountant
has
long been a defense to willfulness in cases of tax fraud and
evasion.”
United
(9th Cir. 2002).
States
The
v.
good
Bishop,
faith
291
reliance
F.3d
1100,
defense
is
1107
not
applicable, however, where the defendant has failed to fully and
accurately disclose all relevant tax-related information to the
accountant
upon
whose
advice
the
defendant
claims
reliance.
See, e.g., Bishop, 291 F.3d at 1107; United States v. Masat, 948
F.2d
923,
930
(5th Cir. 1991).
This
is
so
because
if
a
defendant did not make full disclosure to his accountant, he
likely did not act in good faith.
see
also
United
States
v.
See Bishop, 291 F.3d at 1107;
DeClue,
899
F.2d
1465,
1472
(6th Cir. 1990) (“A taxpayer who relies on others to keep his
records and prepare his tax returns may not withhold information
5
Appeal: 10-4593
Document: 56
Date Filed: 08/18/2011
Page: 6 of 12
from those persons relative to taxable events and then escape
responsibility for the false tax returns which result.”).
We have reviewed the evidence adduced at trial, and we
conclude
that
the
Government
adduced
ample
evidence
of
Witasick’s guilt, and the jury properly concluded that he did
not rely on the advice of his accountant.
In fact, the evidence
reveals that Witasick directed his accountant to over-deduct his
business
expenses,
accountant
that
despite
only
being
business
repeatedly
expenditures
informed
were
by
the
deductable.
Thus, there is no basis in the record for Witasick’s claim that
he relied in good faith on the advice of his tax preparer.
The same is true of Witasick’s claim with regard to
his failure to file charge.
The evidence shows that Witasick
was not told by his attorney not to file a tax return until more
than a year after the return was due, at which time the offense
was complete.
Witasick argues in the alternative that the Government
did not adduce admissible evidence of a tax loss.
agree.
We do not
As discussed above, in order to prove a violation of
§ 7201, the Government must prove, among other elements, “the
existence of a tax deficiency.”
Boulware v. United States, 552
U.S. 421, 424 (2008)(quoting Sansone v. United States, 380 U.S.
343, 351 (1965); see also Wilson, 118 F.3d at 236.
To show a
tax
that
deficiency,
the
Government
6
must
prove
first
the
Appeal: 10-4593
Document: 56
Date Filed: 08/18/2011
Page: 7 of 12
taxpayer “had unreported income, and second, that the income was
taxable.”
United
(8th Cir. 1986).
States
The
v.
Abodeely,
Government
need
801
not
F.2d
prove
1020,
the
1023
precise
amount of the tax due and owing.
United States v. Citron, 783
F.2d 307, 314-15 (2d Cir. 1986).
To prove a violation of 26
U.S.C. § 7206(a), tax perjury, the Government must prove that
“(1) the
defendant
made
and
subscribed
to
a
tax
return
containing a written declaration; (2) the tax return was made
under penalties of perjury; (3) the defendant did not believe
the return to be true and correct as to every material matter;
and
(4)
the
defendant
acted
willfully.”
United
States
v.
that
the
Aramony, 88 F.3d 1369, 1382 (4th Cir. 1996).
The
gravamen
of
Witasick’s
witness,
summary
exceeded
the
scope
expert.
We need not resolve this claim, however, as multiple
summary
agent
is
Government’s
of
IRS
objection
testimony
Jacqueline
and
English,
testified
as
an
witnesses testified that the amount of space at Stoneleigh being
used for business purposes was considerably less than 75% and
100% in the tax years 1999 and 2000, respectively.
Thus, the
Government adduced sufficient evidence that tended to show that
Witasick over-deducted his business expenses, and substantially
so.
Thus, the jury could properly infer that Witasick made
material representations in his tax return that resulted in a
7
Appeal: 10-4593
Document: 56
tax deficiency.
Date Filed: 08/18/2011
Page: 8 of 12
We therefore affirm his convictions for the
tax-related charges.
II.
Sufficiency of the Evidence (Health Care Fraud)
Witasick next argues that there was no evidence that
he
personally
acted
to
place
Ca-stle
on
his
firm’s
health
insurance policy, that he and the law firm were one and the
same, and that this type of case falls outside the scope of 18
U.S.C. § 1347.
To
prove
health
care
fraud,
the
Government
had
to
prove that Witasick “knowingly and willfully executed a scheme
to defraud any health care benefit program.”
United States v.
Girod,
2675925,
Nos.
10-30128,
10-30339,
2011
WL
(5th Cir. July 11, 2011); see 18 U.S.C. § 1347.
scheme
to
defraud,
“acted
with
the
the
Government
specific
intent
had
to
to
show
defraud,
at
*5
To prove a
that
Witasick
which
may
be
inferred from the totality of the circumstances and need not be
proven by direct evidence.”
United States v. Godwin, 272 F.3d
659, 666 (4th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In
particular, we look to the “common-law understanding of fraud,”
which
includes
“acts
taken
to
conceal,
impression, mislead, or otherwise deceive.”
Colton, 231 F.3d 890, 898 (4th Cir. 2000).
8
create
a
false
United States v.
Appeal: 10-4593
Document: 56
Date Filed: 08/18/2011
Page: 9 of 12
Turning to Witasick’s first claim that there was no
evidence that he directed Ca-stle’s name be placed on the health
care policy, we find the claim belied by the record.
Ample
evidence was introduced that showed that Witasick, either alone
or
in
concert
with
his
law
partners,
made
falsely list Ca-stle as a law firm employee.
Government
adduced
representations
evidence
to
that
representatives
the
decision
Furthermore, the
Witasick
from
Anthem,
made
the
false
insurer,
when questioned about Ca-stle’s employment status.
conclude
to
Thus, we
that the Government adduced substantial evidence that
Witasick engaged in fraud.
We also reject Witasick’s argument that he and his law
firm were one and the same at the time the alleged misconduct
occurred.
Anthem’s representative testified that Anthem had a
policy with “Witasick, Parker & Thompson,” the law partnership,
rather
than
with
“Witasick
&
Associates,”
the
sole
proprietorship that existed after Witasick falsely listed Castle as an employee.
employee
could
be
Thus, Witasick’s claim that his personal
considered
his
firm’s
employee
is
without
merit.
Finally, we turn to Witasick’s argument that § 1347,
the
statute
under
which
Witasick
was
prosecuted,
does
not
contemplate criminal liability for the activities alleged.
We
review questions of statutory interpretation de novo.
9
United
Appeal: 10-4593
Document: 56
States
v.
Carr,
interpreting
Date Filed: 08/18/2011
592
the
F.3d
scope
636,
of
language of the statute.
a
639
Page: 10 of 12
n.4
statute,
(4th Cir. 2010).
we
look
first
to
In
the
See North Carolina ex rel. Cooper v.
Tenn. Valley Auth., 515 F.3d 344, 351 (4th Cir. 2008).
Here,
the
language
of
the
statute
provides
that
a
person is guilty of health care fraud if he:
knowingly and willfully executes,
execute, a scheme or artifice--
or
attempts
to
(1) to defraud any health care benefit program;
or
(2) to obtain, by means of false or fraudulent
pretenses, representations, or promises, any of the
money or property owned by, or under the custody or
control of, any health care benefit program,
in connection with the delivery of or payment
health care benefits, items, or services[.]
18 U.S.C. § 1347.
for
While Witasick seeks to invoke the rule of
lenity that ambiguous criminal statutes must be construed in
favor
of
ambiguous.
the
accused,
we
conclude
that
the
statute
is
not
Witasick was convicted of knowingly making false
statements to Anthem and its representative, and with improperly
listing Ca-stle on the law firm’s group health insurance policy
-- a classic example of a scheme to defraud.
This conduct falls
squarely within the statute’s ambit, and no further inquiry into
10
Appeal: 10-4593
Document: 56
Date Filed: 08/18/2011
the legislative history is required. 2
Page: 11 of 12
Thus, we affirm his health
care fraud conviction.
III.
Prosecutorial Misconduct
Finally, Witasick argues that he was the victim of
prosecutorial misconduct.
He claims that the prosecutor was
required to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury and
did
not
do
so.
To
succeed
on
a
claim
of
prosecutorial
misconduct, a defendant must show that the prosecutor’s conduct
was improper and that it “prejudicially affected his substantial
rights so as to deprive him of a fair trial.”
United States v.
Scheetz, 293 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir. 2002).
“In reviewing a
claim
of
prosecutorial
determine
whether
the
misconduct,
conduct
so
we
review
infected
the
the
claim
trial
to
with
unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due
process.”
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Witasick’s argument that the prosecution must present
exculpatory
evidence
to
the
grand
jury
is
similar
to
that
rejected by the Supreme Court in United States v. Williams, 504
U.S.
36,
44-46
(1992).
While
2
Witasick
seeks
to
distinguish
Our conclusion is supported by the Second Circuit’s
decision in United States v. Josephberg, 562 F.3d 478 (2d Cir.
2009), a case in which the court affirmed a conviction under §
1347 for conduct virtually identical to that at issue here.
11
Appeal: 10-4593
Document: 56
Williams,
we
find
Date Filed: 08/18/2011
his
attempts
Page: 12 of 12
unpersuasive.
The
Court
was
emphatic that “[i]mposing upon the prosecutor a legal obligation
to
present
exculpatory
evidence
in
his
possession
incompatible with [the adversarial] system.”
also
find
no
support
in
Witasick’s
claim
would
Id. at 52.
that
the
be
We
Citizens
Protection Act, 28 U.S.C. § 530B(a) and the Virginia Rules of
Professional Conduct require such disclosure.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court.
legal
before
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
the
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
12
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?