CALCRIM No. 2801. Willful Failure to File Tax Return (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 19706)

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (2020 edition)

Download PDF
2801.Willful Failure to File Tax Return (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 19706)
The defendant is charged [in Count ] with intentionally failing to
(file a tax return with/ [or] supply information to) the Franchise Tax
Board [in violation of Revenue and Taxation Code section 19706].
To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must
prove that:
1. The defendant was required to (file a tax return with/ [or] supply
information to) the Franchise Tax Board;
2. The defendant did not (file the tax return/ [or] supply the
information) by the time required;
3. The defendant voluntarily chose not to (file the tax return/ [or]
supply the information), with the intent to violate a legal duty
known to (him/her);
AND
4. When the defendant made that choice, (he/she) intended to
unlawfully evade paying a tax.
[If the People prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Franchise Tax
Board issued a certificate stating that (a return had not been filed/ [or]
information had not been supplied) as required by law, you may but are
not required to conclude that (the return was not filed/ [or] the
information was not supplied).]
[The People do not have to prove the exact amount of (unreported
income/ [or] [additional] tax owed). The People must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant (failed to report income/ [or] owed
[additional] taxes).]
[The People do not have to prove that the (unreported/ [or]
underreported) income came from illegal activity.]
New January 2006; Revised June 2007
BENCH NOTES
Instructional Duty
The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction defining the elements of the
crime.
The statute states that the defendant’s acts must be “willful.” (Rev. & Tax. Code,
§ 19706.) As used in the tax code, “willful” means that the defendant must act “in
voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty.” (People v. Hagen (1998) 19
Cal.4th 652, 666 [80 Cal.Rptr.2d 24, 967 P.2d 563].) The committee has chosen to
664
use this description of the meaning of the term in place of the word “willful” to
avoid confusion with other instructions that provide a different definition of
“willful.”
The bracketed paragraph that begins with “If the People prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that” explains a rebuttable presumption created by statute. (See Rev. & Tax.
Code, § 19703; Evid. Code, §§ 600-607.) The California Supreme Court has held
that a jury instruction phrased as a rebuttable presumption in a criminal case creates
an unconstitutional mandatory presumption. (People v. Roder (1983) 33 Cal.3d 491,
497-505 [189 Cal.Rptr. 501, 658 P.2d 1302].) In accordance with Roder, the
instruction has been written as a permissive inference. In addition, it is only
appropriate to instruct the jury on a permissive inference if there is no evidence to
contradict the inference. (Evid. Code, § 640.) If any evidence has been introduced to
support the opposite factual finding, then the jury “shall determine the existence or
nonexistence of the presumed fact from the evidence and without regard to the
presumption.” (Ibid.)
Therefore, the court must not give the bracketed paragraph that begins with “If the
People prove beyond a reasonable doubt that” if there is evidence that the return
was filed or the information was supplied.
Give the bracketed paragraph that begins with “The People do not have to prove the
exact amount” on request. (United States v. Wilson (3d Cir. 1979) 601 F.2d 95, 99;
Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, Criminal (5th ed.) § 67.08.)
Defenses - Instructional Duty
If there is sufficient evidence to raise a reasonable doubt that the defendant had a
good faith belief that his or her conduct was legal, the court has a sua sponte duty
to give the instruction on this defense. (People v. Hagen (1998) 19 Cal.4th 652, 660
[80 Cal.Rptr.2d 24, 967 P.2d 563].) Give CALCRIM No. 2860, Defense: Good
Faith Belief Conduct Legal.
If there is sufficient evidence to raise a reasonable doubt that the defendant relied on
the advice of a professional, the court has a sua sponte duty to give the instruction
on this defense. (United States v. Mitchell (4th Cir. 1974) 495 F.2d 285, 287-288;
see Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, Criminal (5th ed.) § 67.25.) Give
CALCRIM No. 2861, Defense: Reliance on Professional Advice.
AUTHORITY
• Elements. Rev. & Tax. Code, § 19706.
• Willful Requires Volitional Violation of Known Legal Duty. People v. Hagen
(1998) 19 Cal.4th 652, 666 [80 Cal.Rptr.2d 24, 967 P.2d 563]; see also Federal
Jury Practice and Instructions, Criminal (5th ed.) § 67.20.
• Evade a Tax Defined. See United States v. Bishop (1973) 412 U.S. 346, 360,
fn. 8 [93 S.Ct. 2008, 36 L.Ed.2d 941]; Distinctive Theatres of Columbus v.
Looker (S.D.Ohio 1958) 165 F.Supp. 410, 411.
• Certificate of Franchise Tax Board. Rev. & Tax. Code, § 19703.
• Mandatory Presumption Unconstitutional Unless Instructed as Permissive
TAX CRIMES CALCRIM No. 2801
665
Inference. People v. Roder (1983) 33 Cal.3d 491, 497-505 [189 Cal.Rptr. 501,
658 P.2d 1302].
• Need Not Prove Exact Amount. United States v. Wilson (3d Cir. 1979) 601
F.2d 95, 99; United States v. Johnson (1943) 319 U.S. 503, 517-518 [63 S.Ct
1233, 87 L.Ed. 1546].
• Amount of Unpaid Taxes Need Not Be Substantial. People v. Mojica (2006)
139 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1204 [43 Cal.Rptr.3d 634]; United States v. Holland
(1989) 880 F.2d 1091, 1095-1096.
• Need Not Prove From Illegal Activity. People v. Smith (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d
1103, 1158 [203 Cal.Rptr. 196].
LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES
• Failure to File Tax Return. Rev. & Tax. Code, § 19701; People v. Smith (1984)
155 Cal.App.3d 1103, 1182-1183 [203 Cal.Rptr. 196].
SECONDARY SOURCES
2 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Crimes Against
Governmental Authority, § 137.
6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 140,
Challenges to Crimes, §§ 140.02[5], 140.03 (Matthew Bender).
2802-2809. Reserved for Future Use
CALCRIM No. 2801 TAX CRIMES
666

© Judicial Council of California.