## Facts

- Richard J. Parris operated Omega Tax Planning Group in Columbus, Ohio, marketing a “tax restructuring program” to clients.
- For a fee of about $2,500–$3,000, Parris set up an S-corporation that “employed” the taxpayer and a limited partnership that held the taxpayer’s personal residence and rented it to the S-corporation.
- The structure treated the taxpayer’s personal living expenses (including items such as food, vacations, and children’s education costs) as purported business deductions of the S-corporation.
- Parris designed the S-corporations to generate losses, which were passed through to the taxpayer’s individual return to reduce taxable income.
- A federal jury (S.D. Ohio) convicted Parris of twelve counts of aiding or assisting in the preparation or presentation of false or fraudulent income tax returns and two counts of mail fraud.
- The district court imposed a total sentence of six years’ imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and nearly $200,000 in restitution.
- At trial, the government presented lay witnesses, including individuals who declined to join the program and testified that they believed the program was illegal.
- Parris appealed, challenging (among other arguments) the admission of this lay testimony and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for assisting in the preparation of false tax returns and for mail fraud, including proof of willfulness.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting lay opinion testimony that characterized Parris’s tax program as “illegal.”
3. Whether such lay testimony improperly stated legal conclusions or invaded the jury’s role on ultimate issues.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed Parris’s convictions and sentence.
- The court held that the trial evidence supported the jury’s verdict, including a finding that Parris could not reasonably have believed the scheme was lawful and acted willfully.
- The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the challenged lay testimony.
- The court concluded the lay opinions were admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 701 and were not barred merely because they touched on ultimate issues under Rule 704(a).

## Legal Principles

- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 701, lay opinion testimony is admissible if it is rationally based on the witness’s perception and helpful to understanding the testimony or deciding a fact in issue.
- Federal Rule of Evidence 704(a) permits opinion testimony that embraces an ultimate issue, so long as it otherwise satisfies applicable evidentiary limits (including Rule 701 for lay opinions).
- A lay witness’s description of their understanding of a defendant’s proposal and their resulting conduct (such as declining participation), even using terms like “illegal,” may be admissible when grounded in firsthand interactions and helpful to the jury.
- In tax-related fraud prosecutions, a claimed good-faith belief in legality may be rejected where the scheme’s structure and surrounding evidence support a finding of willful disregard of tax law.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit upheld Parris’s tax and mail fraud convictions, finding sufficient evidence of willful wrongdoing and ruling that lay witnesses could testify—based on personal perception and helpfulness—that they viewed the promoted tax program as illegal without creating reversible error.


United States v. Parris, 243 F.3d 286 (6th Cir. 2001)