California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM) (2017)

2843. Determining Income: Bank Deposits Method

Download PDF
2843.Determining Income: Bank Deposits Method
In this case, the People are [also] using what is called the bank deposits
method to try to prove that the defendant had unreported taxable
income. I will now explain the bank deposits method.
If the People prove that: (a) the defendant engaged in an activity that
produced taxable income, (b) the defendant periodically deposited
money in bank accounts in (his/her) name or under (his/her) control,
and (c) the money deposited did not come from nontaxable sources,
then you may but are not required to conclude that these bank deposits
are taxable income. Nontaxable sources of the bank deposits include
gifts, inheritances, loans, or redeposits or transfers of funds between
accounts. If you have a reasonable doubt about whether the People have
proved (a), (b), or (c), you must find that the People have not proved
under the bank deposits method that the defendant had unreported
taxable income.
In order to prove that the defendant had unreported taxable income
[using the bank deposits method], the People must also prove that the
defendant’s total taxable bank deposits were substantially greater than
the income that the defendant reported on (his/her) tax return for
<insert year alleged>.
[There is another factor you may consider in deciding whether the
People have proved that the defendant had unreported taxable income
under the bank deposits method. If the People have proved beyond a
reasonable doubt that: (1) during the year, the defendant spent money
from funds not deposited in any bank and (2) those expenditures would
not be valid tax deductions, then you may but are not required to
conclude that the defendant received money or property during the
year. If the People also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the money
or property received did not come from nontaxable sources, then you
may but are not required to conclude that the money or property was
also taxable income. If you have a reasonable doubt about whether the
People have proved any of these factors, you may not take the
expenditures into account in applying the bank deposits method.]
In order to rely on the bank deposits method of proving taxable income,
the People must prove the defendant’s cash on hand at the starting
point with reasonable certainty. Here the starting point is January 1,
<insert year alleged>.Cash on hand is cash that the
defendant had in (his/her) possession at the starting point. The People
do not need to show the exact amount of the cash on hand at the
starting point, but the People’s claimed cash on hand figure must be
reasonably certain.
683
0037
In deciding whether the claimed cash on hand figure has been proved
with reasonable certainty and whether the People have proved that any
money or property the defendant received during the year did not come
from nontaxable sources, consider whether law enforcement agents
sufficiently investigated all reasonable “leads” concerning the existence
and value of other assets and sources of nontaxable income. Law
enforcement agents must investigate all reasonable leads that arise
during the investigation or that the defendant suggests regarding assets
and income. This duty to reasonably investigate applies only to leads
that arise during the investigation or to explanations the defendant gives
during the investigation. Law enforcement agents are not required to
investigate every conceivable asset or source of nontaxable funds.
If you have a reasonable doubt about any of the following:
A. Whether the investigation reasonably pursued or refuted the
defendant’s explanations or other leads regarding defendant’s
assets or income during the year,
B. Whether the People have proved the defendant’s cash on hand at
the beginning of <insert year alleged> to a
reasonable degree of certainty,
OR
C. Whether the People have proved that the defendant’s total bank
deposits, together with any nondeductible expenditures the
defendant made during the year, were substantially more than
the income that the defendant reported on (his/her) tax return
for <insert year alleged>,
then you must find that the People have not proved under the bank
deposits method that the defendant had unreported taxable income.
[If, on the other hand, you conclude that the defendant did have
unreported taxable income, you must still decide whether the People
have proved all elements of the crime[s] charged [in Count[s] ].]
New January 2006; Revised August 2012
BENCH NOTES
Instructional Duty
If the prosecution is relying on the bank deposits method, the court has a sua
sponte duty to give this instruction. (See Holland v. United States (1954) 348 U.S.
121, 129 [75 S.Ct. 127, 99 L.Ed. 150]; United States v. Hall (9th Cir. 1981) 650
F.2d 994, 999.)
The court must also give the appropriate instruction on the elements of the offense
charged.
CALCRIM No. 2843 TAX CRIMES
684
0038
Give the bracketed sentence that begins with “If, on the other hand, you conclude”
in every case, unless the court is giving CALCRIM No. 2846, Proof of Unreported
Taxable Income: Must Still Prove Elements of Offense.
AUTHORITY
• Bank Deposits Method Explained. United States v. Hall (9th Cir. 1981) 650
F.2d 994, 997, fn. 4; see also Pattern Jury Instructions of the District Judges
Association of the Eleventh Circuit, Offense Instruction No. 93.3 (2003);
Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, Criminal (5th ed.) § 67.07.
• Sua Sponte Duty to Instruct on Method. United States v. Hall (9th Cir. 1981)
650 F.2d 994, 999.
• Requirements for Proof. United States v. Conaway (5th Cir. 1993) 11 F.3d 40,
43–44; United States v. Abodeely (8th Cir. 1986) 801 F.2d 1020, 1024; United
States v. Boulet (5th Cir. 1978) 577 F.2d 1165, 1167.
TAX CRIMES CALCRIM No. 2843
685
0039