U.S. v. Curtis

In prosecution on three misdemeanor counts of willful failure to pay income taxes for years 2007, 2008 and 2009, Dist. Ct. did not err in allowing prosecutor to introduce evidence that defendant had failed to pay his law firm’s payroll taxes for third and fourth quarters of 2013. While defendant asserted that said evidence was irrelevant with respect to issues of intent and thus constituted improper propensity evidence, defendant invited said testimony when he raised issue regarding his taxpaying behavior, and instant evidence was relevant to rebut defendant’s testimony that he had fully paid his recent tax obligations. Moreover, payroll tax evidence was relevant to rebut defendant’s anticipated defense that he had acted with good faith misunderstanding when he failed to pay his taxes in charged years.