Marinello v. United States

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Supreme Court of the United States
Marinello v. United States
Term: 2017
Important Dates
Argument: December 5, 2017
Decided: March 21, 2018
Outcome
Second Circuit reversed
Vote
7 - 2
Majority
Stephen Breyer • Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Anthony Kennedy • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch
Dissenting
Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito


Marinello v. United States is a case argued during the October 2017 term of the U.S. Supreme Court. Argument in the case was held on December 5, 2017. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: In brief: Carlo J. Marinello II was convicted of eight counts of tax evasion and one count of violating a provision of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. §7212(a),. That provision, known as the omnibus clause, criminalizes any action to corrupt or impede the due administration of the Internal Revenue Code. Marinello argued that a conviction under the omnibus clause required a defendant to have knowledge of an investigation or proceeding in order to prove the defendant corrupted or impeded the government's due administration of the law. He argued that because he was unaware of the IRS' investigation of him, he could not be convicted under the omnibus clause. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Marinello's argument, holding that the omnibus clause did not require prior knowledge of any government investigation or pending action against a defendant in order to sustain a conviction. Argument in the case was held on December 5, 2017.
  • The issue: Must the omnibus clause be construed in such a way as to include only pending actions by the Internal Revenue Service against a defendant of which the defendant had knowledge, as the Sixth Circuit held, or if such knowledge was unnecessary to sustain a conviction as the Second Circuit held?
  • The outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit on a vote of 7 - 2.


    • You can review the lower court's opinion here.[1]

    Background

    Legal question

    This was a case about a provision of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a), which stated,[2]

    “ Whoever corruptly or by force or threats of force (including any threatening letter or communication) endeavors to intimidate or impede any officer or employee of the United States acting in an official capacity under this title, or in any other way corruptly or by force or threats of force (including any threatening letter or communication) obstructs or impedes, or endeavors to obstruct or impede, the due administration of this title, shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $5,000, or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both, except that if the offense is committed only by threats of force, the person convicted thereof shall be fined not more than $3,000, or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both. The term 'threats of force,' as used in this subsection, means threats of bodily harm to the officer or employee of the United States or to a member of his family.[3] ”

    The specific language at issue in this case was the provision, referred to as the omnibus clause, that read "...or in any other way corruptly or by force or threats of force (including any threatening letter or communication) obstructs or impedes, or endeavors to obstruct or impede, the due administration of this title..."[1]

    The legal question in this case was whether a defendant had to have known about the investigation in order to be convicted under the omnibus clause of impeding the investigation.

    Case background

    Carlo J. Marinello II owned and operated an Erie County, New York-based corporation, Express Courier Group/Buffalo, Inc. The corporation operated a freight service that transported documents and packages between the United States and Canada. In 2004, operating on an anonymous tip, the IRS investigated Marinello for possible tax evasion. That investigation took place without Marinello's knowledge, and the IRS later closed the investigation. The IRS reopened an investigation of Marinello in 2009. As part of that investigation, an IRS agent interviewed Marinello at his home. During the interview, Marinello admitted that he had not kept business records or receipts and that he was unable to recall the last time he had filed an income tax return with the IRS.

    In 2012, Marinello was charged in federal district court with eight counts of willfully failing to file individual and corporate tax returns for calendar years 2005 through 2008. Marinello was also charged with one count of "corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede the due administration of the Internal Revenue laws," in violation of 26 U.S.C. §7212(a), the omnibus clause.[1]

    Marinello was convicted on all nine counts. Following his convictions, Marinello moved for a judgment of acquittal or a new trial. Marinello argued that he could not be convicted on the omnibus clause charge because he had not known about the investigation and had not actively moved to obstruct it. The district court denied Marinello's motion, holding that "[k]nowledge of a pending [IRS] investigation is not an essential element of the crime."

    Marinello then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

    Panel opinion

    A three-judge panel of the Second Circuit composed of Circuit Judges Rosemary Pooler and Robert Sack and District Judge Katherine Failla of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, who sat by designation, heard the appeal. Marinello argued that he should not have been convicted under the omnibus clause "because the government offered no evidence at trial that he knew of a pending IRS investigation against him at the time of the actions on which the conviction was based."[1]

    In a unanimous opinion, the panel upheld Marinello's convictions. The court rejected Marinello's argument. The court ruled that a defendant's knowledge of an ongoing investigation was not a necessary element under the statute and that the government was not required to prove the defendant's knowledge in order to win a conviction under the omnibus clause. As further support for its conclusion, the court cited Justice Department policies indicating that "a defendant may be charged under the omnibus clause in the absence of a pending IRS action."[1]

    Petitioner's challenge

    Carlo J. Marinello II, the petitioner, challenged the holding of the Second Circuit. Marinello argued that a conviction under the omnibus clause requires that a defendant had knowledge of an ongoing IRS investigation.

    Certiorari granted

    On March 21, 2017, Carlo J. Marinello II, the petitioner, initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court of the United States in filing a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. The U.S. Supreme Court granted Marinello's request for certiorari on June 27, 2017. Argument in the case was held on December 5, 2017.[4]

    Question presented

    Question presented:

    "The question presented is whether § 7212(a)'s residual clause ... requires that there was a pending IRS action or proceeding, such as an investigation or audit, of which the defendant was aware when he engaged in the purportedly obstructive conduct."[4]

    Audio

    • Audio of oral argument:[5]



    Transcript

    • Transcript of oral argument:[6]

    Outcome

    Decision

    The Supreme Court ruled 7 - 2 to reverse the Second Circuit.[7]

    Opinion of the court

    Justice Stephen Breyer authored the opinion for the court, in which Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Anthony Kennedy, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Elena Kagan, and Justice Neil Gorsuch joined. The court concluded that the statute required some connection between the defendant's conduct and the government proceeding in order to secure a conviction:

    “ We conclude that, to secure a conviction under the Omnibus Clause, the Government must show (among

    other things) that there is a 'nexus' between the defendant’s conduct and a particular administrative proceeding, such as an investigation, an audit, or other targeted administrative action. That nexus requires a relationship in time, causation, or logic with the [administrative] proceeding...In addition to satisfying this nexus requirement, the Government must show that the proceeding was pending at the time the defendant engaged in the obstructive conduct or, at the least, was then reasonably foreseeable by the defendant. It is not enough for the Government to claim that the defendant knew the IRS may catch on to his unlawful scheme eventually. To use a maritime analogy, the proceeding must at least be in the offing.[7][8][3]

    		”

    Dissent by Justice Thomas

    Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the court's judgment, joined by Justice Samuel Alito. Thomas argued that the language of the statute did not support the limitation identified by the court:

    “ The Omnibus Clause of 26 U. S. C. §7212(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (Tax Code) makes it a felony to

    'corruptly . . . endeavo[r] to obstruct or imped[e] the due administration of this title.' “'T]his title' refers to Title 26, which contains the entire Tax Code and authorizes the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to calculate, assess, and collect taxes. I would hold that the Omnibus Clause does what it says: forbid corrupt efforts to impede the IRS from performing any of these activities. The Court, however, reads 'this title' to mean 'a particular [IRS] proceeding. And that proceeding must be either 'pending' or 'in the offing.' The Court may well prefer a statute written that way, but that is not what Congress enacted. I respectfully dissent.[7][3]

    		”

    Text of the opinion

    See also

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States of America v. Carlo J. Marinello II, October 14, 2016
    2. ↑ Cornell University's Legal Information Institute, "26 U.S. Code § 7212 - Attempts to interfere with administration of internal revenue laws," accessed September 26, 2017
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Supreme Court of the United States, Marinello v. United States, June 27, 2017
    5. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, 'Marinello v. United States, argued December 6, 2017
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Marinello v. United States, argued December 6, 2017
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 United States Supreme Court, "Marinello v. United States Opinion," March 21, 2018
    8. ↑ Internal quotations omitted.
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Marinello_v._United_States&oldid=8891512"