## Facts

- Anita L. Guidry worked for Wichita Sheet Metal from 1986 to 1997, ultimately as controller, supervising office staff and serving as an authorized signatory on the company checking account.
- Guidry held a B.B.A., listed accounting as her major on her résumé, and described her occupation as “accountant” on tax returns.
- Guidry executed an embezzlement scheme by writing $9,000–$10,000 checks payable to the company’s bank, obtaining owners’ signatures by representing the checks were for federal tax payments, then cashing the checks and keeping the cash.
- She concealed the theft by altering company records to make personal expenditures appear as inventory purchases, creating discrepancies between actual and recorded inventory.
- Guidry prepared joint federal income tax returns for herself and her husband for 1993–1995; the returns were carefully prepared but omitted the embezzled funds.
- During a warranted search of her home, an IRS agent found IRS tax booklets for the relevant years in a drawer labeled “taxes”; the materials stated (or directed to publications stating) that embezzled income is taxable and must be reported.
- A jury convicted Guidry on three counts of knowingly and willfully filing false returns, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1); the district court denied acquittal, imposed a 60-month sentence, and Guidry appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the home search warrant lacked Fourth Amendment particularity and was overbroad, requiring suppression of seized tax materials.
2. Whether the jury instructions misstated the “willfulness” requirement or otherwise reduced the government’s burden under 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1).
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Guidry knowingly and willfully filed returns she did not believe were true and correct as to a material matter.
4. Whether the district court properly applied the Sentencing Guidelines, including tax-loss calculations and enhancements.

## Decision

- The court affirmed Guidry’s convictions on all three § 7206(1) counts.
- The court held the search warrant was sufficiently particular and not an impermissible general warrant; seizure of tax-related materials found in the “taxes” drawer was within scope.
- The court held the jury instructions, read as a whole, correctly defined willfulness as a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty.
- The court held the evidence supported a finding of willfulness, including Guidry’s accounting background, her financial role, her concealment efforts, the careful preparation of the returns, and her possession of IRS materials identifying embezzled income as taxable.
- The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the sentencing determinations and remanded for resentencing due to at least one Guidelines application error.

## Legal Principles

- A warrant in a tax or financial investigation may describe categories of records broadly yet satisfy the Fourth Amendment if the items to be seized are reasonably limited by, and connected to, the suspected offenses.
- For 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1), willfulness requires proof of a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty, and the defendant must have signed a return she did not believe was true and correct as to a material matter.
- Willfulness in tax offenses may be established through circumstantial evidence, including education and experience, job responsibilities, sophisticated concealment, and possession of official tax guidance indicating the applicable reporting rule.
- Appellate review generally defers to factual findings underlying Guideline calculations unless clearly erroneous, while reviewing legal interpretations of the Guidelines de novo; a conviction may be affirmed while sentencing is remanded for recalculation.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit upheld Guidry’s convictions for willfully filing false tax returns by omitting embezzled income, rejecting suppression and instructional challenges and finding the evidence sufficient to prove knowledge and intent, but remanded for resentencing after identifying error in the district court’s Sentencing Guidelines application.


United States v. Guidry, 199 F.3d 1150 (10th Cir. 1999)