State of Utah v. Brown

----ooOoo----

State of Utah,
Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Leonard Shryl Brown,
Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 961535-CA

F I L E D
June 29, 2000
  2000 UT App 207 -----

Sixth District, Richfield Department
The Honorable David L. Mower

Attorneys:
Leonard Shryl Brown, Richfield, Appellant Pro Se
Jan Graham and Laura B. Dupaix, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Bench, Billings, and Davis.

PER CURIAM:

Leonard Shryl Brown appeals his conviction of five counts of failure to file a tax return, a third degree felony. We affirm.

The Amended Information satisfied the requirements of Rule 4(b) of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure. It described the offense by its statutory name, included citations to the statutes, quoted the elements, and stated the year involved in each count. This information satisfied the rule and was sufficient to enable Brown to prepare a defense. His repeated assertions that the information did not allege a public offense and the court lacked jurisdiction are without merit.

Brown's claim that the statute of limitations barred prosecution for the failure to file a return for the year 1988 is also without merit. Utah Code Ann. § 59-1-401(9)(b) (1996) (formerly section 59-1-401(7)(b)) applies a six year statute of limitations that commences to run when any tax would be due to be remitted. Thus, the statute began to run on April 15, 1989. The Information was filed on January 25, 1995, within the six year statute of limitations.

Utah Code Ann. § 59-10-502(1) (1996) requires a Utah income tax return to be filed by "every resident individual, estate, or trust required to file a federal income tax return for the taxable year." Every person who has "net earnings from self-employment of $400 or more for the taxable year shall make a return with respect to the self-employment tax." 26 U.S.C.A. § 6017 (1989). Taxable income includes all income from whatever source, including gross income derived from a business and compensation for services, such as fees, commissions, and fringe benefits. See id. §§ 61(2) and (3), 63 (1988).

The State's evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict, to which we "afford great deference." State v. Jiron, 882 P.2d 685, 691 (Utah Ct. App. 1994). "Where there is any evidence, including reasonable inferences that can be drawn from it, from which findings of all the elements of the crime can be made beyond a reasonable doubt, our inquiry is complete and we will sustain the verdict." Id. (citations omitted). "Reversal is warranted only when the evidence is so inconclusive or inherently improbable that reasonable minds must have entertained a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime." Id.

The evidence demonstrated that as a self-employed dentist, Brown received more than $400 from the State of Utah for treatment of Medicaid patients for each of the years in question. He was therefore required to file federal and state tax returns. Brown failed to file a state return despite being notified to do so by the Utah State Tax Commission. The final element of the offense requires proof of the intent to evade the requirement to file a return. "Because direct evidence of a taxpayer's intent is often nonexistent, specific intent must be drawn from the surrounding facts, considering reasonable inferences drawn therefrom." Jensen v. State Tax Comm'n, 835 P.2d 965, 973 (Utah 1992); see alsoNelson v. State Tax Comm'n, 903 P.2d 939, 940 (Utah 1995) ("Irrational and unsupported interpretations of the tax code will not justify circumvention of the requirement to file and pay state taxes, especially when the Commission has notified a resident of his or her duty to do so."). In this case, the jury could reasonably infer from the evidence that Brown intended to evade the filing requirement by his reliance upon his illogical and unsupported interpretation of tax statutes, his denial that payments received for his services were income, and his failure to keep records to allow determination of his actual income.

We have reviewed the remaining issues raised by Brown and conclude they are without merit. See Jiron, 882 P.2d at 691; see also State v. Carter, 776 P.2d 886, 888 (Utah 1989) (holding appellate court need not address every argument, issue, or claim raised on appeal).

We affirm the convictions.
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Russell W. Bench, Judge
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Judith M. Billings, Judge
 
 
 
 

______________________________
James Z. Davis, Judge