U.S. v. DiCosola

In prosecution on bank fraud charge stemming from defendant’s submission of false tax returns to obtain loans proceeds and on tax fraud charge stemming from defendant’s request for $5.5 million refund, prosecution did not commit misconduct in having defendant’s accountant testify before grand jury that tax returns submitted to banks were “hypothetical” returns, even though defendant argued that such testimony was coerced, since: (1) accountant did not break law by generating said hypothetical returns to demonstrate different interpretations of Tax Code; and (2) regardless of either accountant’s or defendant’s intent when preparing such returns, jury could conclude that defendant knew that said returns had not been filed, and thus could not support instant loan applications. Also, record contained sufficient evidence to support defendant’s tax fraud conviction, even though defendant argued that he held honest belief that his submission of return seeking $5.5 million in tax refund was done in good faith, where circumstantial evidence supported jury’s finding that that defendant knew his refund request was fraudulent, based on fact that: (1) instant return, which was self-filed, was wildly different from his legitimately-filed prior tax returns; and (2) defendant was told by IRS prior to filing his return that his theory behind instant refund was frivolous.