A modern application of Cheek ... AND a Baker variation

Though I have urged everyone not to worry too much about the specifics of the Cheek case, I thought folks might be intrigued by this new decision from the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, United States v. Cavins, which discusses Cheek.   Here is how the Eighth Circuit opinion in Cavins starts:

Robert Lee Cavins, Jr., a chiropractor, neither filed returns nor paid federal income taxes for the 1992-1994 tax years, except for estimated tax payments of $10,000 during 1992. Cavins and his wife also transferred their home and his office to residential and chiropractic trusts, and Cavins instructed his employees to deposit chiropractic revenues into various trust accounts. When Cavins sold his practice in 1999, he deposited $80,000 of the proceeds in an overseas bank. The Internal Revenue Service assessed nearly $130,000 in tax liabilities and filed a notice of federal tax lien, but the lien never attached to Cavins's property and the IRS went unpaid.

Cavins was charged and after a jury trial convicted of willfully attempting to evade and defeat payment of federal income tax in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201 and 18 U.S.C. § 2.  He appeals the conviction, arguing (i) that the indictment failed to charge and the government failed to prove a willful violation of § 7201; (ii) that the district court erred in refusing to dismiss the indictment because the Form 1040 returns for the 1992-1994 tax years failed to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. §§ 3501-3521 (2000); and (iii) that the admission of evidence that he failed to file income tax returns violated his Fifth Amendment rights.

If you are interested in the outcome of the defendant's appeal, you will need to click through to the opinion.

UPDATE:  I just came across this new decision from the Ninth Circuit that reminded me a bit of Baker, although mens rea issues are not at the center of the case.  The decision in United States v. Able Time, Inc. starts this way:

Able Time, Inc. imported a shipment of watches into the United States.  The watches bore the mark “TOMMY,” which is a registered trademark owned by Tommy Hilfiger Licensing, Inc.  The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection seized the watches pursuant to the Tariff Act, which authorizes seizure of any “merchandise bearing a counterfeit mark.” 19 U.S.C. § 1526(e). Tommy Hilfiger did not make or sell watches at the time of the seizure.  Customs later imposed a civil penalty upon Able Time pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1526(f), which authorizes the imposition of a fine upon any person who imports merchandise that is seized under § 1526(e).

Once again, if you are interested in the outcome of this case, you will need to click through to the opinion.