United States v. McLamb
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
985 F.2d 1284 (1993)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
Harry Godwin paid almost $14,000 in cash to salesman M. L. Stallings to buy a vehicle for Margie Jenkins from a dealership owned by Phillip McLamb (defendant). At McLamb’s instruction, Stallings created a receipt indicating that Godwin had paid $9,000 in cash, and Stallings wrote a check to the dealership for the remainder. McLamb then reimbursed Stallings in cash. No Form 8300 return pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6050I(a) reporting a cash transaction in excess of $10,000 was filed with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The IRS subsequently sent an undercover agent to the dealership. The agent told McLamb that his brother-in-law wanted to buy a car with cash but wished to avoid reporting the transaction to the government. McLamb responded that the buyer should pay approximately $9,000 in cash and the remaining approximately $21,000 with separate cashier’s checks in amounts less than $10,000. The United States charged McLamb with violating 26 U.S.C. § 6050I(f)(1) for (1) evading IRS reporting requirements via structuring and (2) causing a business not to file a § 6050I(a) return. The district court instructed the jury that it had to find that McLamb engaged in both structuring and causing a return not to be filed. The district court did not instruct the jury regarding whether McLamb or the dealership was obliged to file the return. The jury convicted McLamb. McLamb appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of violating § 6050I(f)(1) regarding the Jenkins transaction because the reporting obligation arose when Stallings received the cash and McLamb acted afterwards. McLamb further argued that the district court erred in not instructing the jury regarding who was required to file a return. Finally, McLamb argued that the district court should not have admitted evidence regarding three other dealership sales that involved cash payments of approximately $9,000 and cashier’s checks under $10,000 because the United States failed sufficiently to connect McLamb to those transactions.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Phillips, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.