Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Lynch

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

January 4, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
STEVEN J. LYNCH, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL (DOC. NO. 233)

          Arthur J. Schwab United States District Judge.

         Defendant, Steven J. Lynch (“Lynch”), a highly skilled tax attorney and sophisticated businessman, was found guilty of 16-counts of willful failure to pay over withheld employment taxes in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7202, of a 29-count Superseding Indictment, [1] on September 9, 2016. The evidence at trial fairly established that Lynch possessed superior knowledge of tax and corporate laws which he used to keep Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) agents from being able to collect taxes due for several entities that make up the Iceoplex - - a collection of businesses related to an indoor ice skating rink[2] - - by shifting assets and employees among several entities.

         For a period of more than ten years, Lynch kept the IRS at bay, with promises to pay the withheld employment taxes owed, and with partial payments, some made involuntarily on the rare occasion when the IRS was able to successfully levy a bank account or by applying refunds due to Defendant from his personal tax returns. He structured the Iceoplex entities to keep employees in companies with minimal assets which resulted in the IRS being unable to collect unpaid liabilities; and, he kept Iceoplex assets in other companies that were then able to receive large loans from banks that were unaware the other Iceoplex entities owed millions of dollars in unpaid employment taxes. Trial testimony established that Lynch told IRS agents that he would make more payments toward the unpaid tax liabilities when he was able to secure funds, but instead, Lynch used funds from the loans obtained to pay other creditors and to make capital improvements to his businesses.

         After deliberating over four days for a total of 19 hours, which exceeded the total trial time of 17.5 hours, the Jury returned a verdict in this case which shows a careful count-by-count analysis. The Jury found that the Government proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crimes charged at Counts 13 through 19 and 21 through 29, but acquitted Lynch on all other counts. Doc. Nos. 203, 208.

         Lynch now moves for judgment of acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 or, in the alternative, for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33. Doc. No. 235. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court will DENY these motions.

         I. Legal Standards

         A. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29

         Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 provides that a defendant “may move for a judgment of acquittal . . . after a guilty verdict, ” for “any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.” When reviewing a post-verdict motion for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29, a district court “must review the record in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on the available evidence.” United States v. Smith, 294 F.3d 473, 476-77 (3d Cir. 2002). District courts must be careful “not to usurp the role of the jury by weighing credibility and assigning weight to the evidence, or by substituting [their] judgment for that of the jury.” United States v. Brodie, 403 F.3d 123, 133 (3d Cir. 2005) (citing United States v. Jannotti, 673 F.2d 578, 598 (3d Cir. 1982) (en banc).

         B. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33

         Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 permits a court to “vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires.” When reviewing a Rule 33 motion, the district court must exercise its own judgment in assessing the Government's case, but can order a new trial “only if it believes that there is a serious danger that a miscarriage of justice has occurred--that is, that an innocent person has been convicted.” United States v. Silveus, 542 F.3d 993, 1004-05 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Johnson, 302 F.3d 139, 150 (3d Cir. 2002)).

         C. Elements of 26 U.S.C. § 7202 as Set Forth in the Jury Instructions

         For each of the time periods specified in the Counts for which Lynch was found guilty by the Jury, the Government had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. That Mr. Lynch had a duty under Title 26 of the United States Code to collect, account for, and pay over taxes from the wages of employees;
2. That Mr. Lynch failed to collect, or to truthfully account for, or to pay over the taxes; and,
3. That Mr. Lynch acted willfully.

         Final Jury Instructions, Doc. No. 165.

         “Willfully” means a voluntary and intentional violation of a known legal duty. Doc. No. 165. Conduct is not willful if done through negligence, mistake, accident, or due to a good faith misunderstanding of the requirements of the law. Id. A “good faith belief” is one that is honestly and genuinely held. Id. A belief need not be correct or objectively reasonable to be held in good faith. Id. To find that a defendant acted “willfully, ” the evidence must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with a purpose to disobey or disregard the law. Id. There is no requirement, however, to prove that a defendant had any evil motive or bad purpose other than the purpose to disobey or disregard the law. Id.

         II. Discussion

         A. Sufficient Evidence Exists to Support a Finding of Defendant's Willfulness for the Counts on which Defendant was Convicted

         Lynch argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish that he “willfully” failed to pay the employment taxes and that “overwhelming evidence of [his] good faith” was not refuted by the Government. Doc. No. 235, pp. 9-13. Lynch contends that his good faith was shown by: his accurate and timely-filed quarterly employment tax returns (Form 941s); his payment of a portion of the taxes due; his so-called “prior course of dealings” preceding the quarters for which he was indicted and during which he paid employment taxes late; mistakes made by the IRS in applying payments made to the several employer-company accounts and filing liens in an attempt to collect the taxes owed; and, finally, the undisputed evidence that Lynch always stated that he intended to pay the employment taxes. Id.

         Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the Court finds that the following evidence presented at trial supports the Jury's verdict finding a willful failure to pay the employment taxes for the counts for which Lynch was convicted.

         First, Lynch never disputed that the employment taxes at issue were unpaid. In fact, Defendant's own expert witness submitted a report showing that the taxes still due - - with interest, penalties, and fees - - totaled $2, 743, 127.00 for all quarters between March of 2008 and March of 2015. Doc. No. 201, pp. 44-49; Doc. No. 225, pp. 209-213 (Defendant's expert David Kaplan testified about his calculations of the amounts owed and paid for all of the employer-companies).

         Second, the Counts for which Lynch was convicted are for a two-year, nine month time period between the quarter ending June 31, 2012, and the quarter ending March 30, 2015. Doc. No. 212. Evidence at trial from which a rational factfinder could conclude that Lynch acted willfully during that time period includes:

• Lynch's failure to make any timely payments toward the taxes related to Counts 13-19 and 21-29. See Doc. No. 201, pp. 44-49; and Exhibit G-96.[3]
• The IRS's notice to Lynch in April of 2010 that his actions, such as paying other creditors (including himself), would meet the standard for willfulness. See G-72.
• The FBI's interview of Lynch in March of 2011, during which he was notified that he was the subject of a criminal investigation for willful failure to pay employment taxes. Doc. No. 223, p. 216-218. After the FBI interview, Lynch made full, timely payments for three subsequent quarters and substantial partial payments for two more subsequent quarters before failing to make any payment towards the taxes owed for the quarters related to the Counts for which he was convicted. See Doc. No. 201, pp. 44-49.
• Lynch's failure to pay employment taxes owed after receiving a $6.5 million loan for several Iceoplex entities in 2013; instead, he paid other creditors and made capital improvements to the Iceoplex property. Jt. Exh. 211; Doc. No. 224, pp. 10-12. See United States v. Boccone, 556 Fed.App'x 215, 239 (4th Cir. 2014), cert. denied,135 S.Ct. 169 (2014) (“The intentional preference of ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.