Sheldon Barr v. United States

Second Circuit

Sheldon Barr v. United States

67 F.3d 469, 76 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6933, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 28824, 1995 WL 604599

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedOctober 13, 1995

Docket1673, Docket 94-6332

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 67 F.3d 469 (Sheldon Barr v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sheldon Barr v. United States, 67 F.3d 469, 76 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6933, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 28824, 1995 WL 604599 (2d Cir. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Sheldon Barr appeals from a jury verdict before Judge Trager holding him liable for tax penalties under I.R.C. §§ 6700, 6701. In this published opinion we address appellant’s claim that the district court erroneously charged the jury that the government need prove such liability only by a preponderance of the evidence. Appellant argues that the clear and convincing evidence standard should have been applied.

The vast majority of courts that have addressed the issue have held that preponderance of the evidence is the appropriate standard of proof under Sections 6700 and 6701. See Mattingly v. United States, 924 F.2d 785, 787-90 (8th Cir.1991) (preponderance standard of proof under Section 6701); Rodrigues v. United States, 797 F.Supp. 122, 124 (D.R.I.1992) (same); Weir v. United States, 716 F.Supp. 574, 577 (N.D.Ala.1989) (preponderance standard of proof under Section 6700); American Technology Resources v. United States, 709 F.Supp. 610, 617 (E.D.Pa.1989) (same), aff'd 893 F.2d 651 (3d Cir.1990), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 933, 110 S.Ct. 2176, 109 L.Ed.2d 505 (1990); United States v. H & L Schwartz, Inc., No. CV 84-5497, 1987 WL 45223, at *6 (C.D.Cal. Nov. 5, 1987) (same), aff'd sub. nom. Bond v. United States, 872 F.2d 898 (9th Cir.1989); United States v. Music Masters Ltd., 621 F.Supp. 1046, 1054 (W.D.N.C.1985) (same), aff'd sub nom. United States v. Masters, 816 F.2d 674 (4th Cir.1987) (per curiam); cf. Franklet v. United States, 578 F.Supp. 1552, 1559 (N.D.Cal.1984) (preponderance standard of proof under Sec *470 tion 6702), aff'd, 761 F.2d 529 (9th Cir.1985) (per curiam). But see Warner v. United States, 700 F.Supp. 532, 533 (S.D.Fla.1988) (requiring proof by clear and convincing evidence under Section 6701). We adopt the preponderance of the evidence standard for the reasons stated by those courts.

We address appellant’s other claims in a summary order filed this day.

We therefore affirm.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Sheldon Barr appeals from a jury verdict before Judge Trager holding him liable for tax penalties under I.R.C. §§ 6700, 6701. In this published opinion we address appellant’s claim that the district court erroneously charged the jury that the government need prove such liability only by a preponderance of the evidence. Appellant argues that the clear and convincing evidence standard should have been applied.

The vast majority of courts that have addressed the issue have held that preponderance of the evidence is the appropriate standard of proof under Sections 6700 and 6701. See Mattingly v. United States, 924 F.2d 785, 787-90 (8th Cir.1991) (preponderance standard of proof under Section 6701); Rodrigues v. United States, 797 F.Supp. 122, 124 (D.R.I.1992) (same); Weir v. United States, 716 F.Supp. 574, 577 (N.D.Ala.1989) (preponderance standard of proof under Section 6700); American Technology Resources v. United States, 709 F.Supp. 610, 617 (E.D.Pa.1989) (same), aff'd 893 F.2d 651 (3d Cir.1990), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 933, 110 S.Ct. 2176, 109 L.Ed.2d 505 (1990); United States v. H & L Schwartz, Inc., No. CV 84-5497, 1987 WL 45223, at *6 (C.D.Cal. Nov. 5, 1987) (same), aff'd sub. nom. Bond v. United States, 872 F.2d 898 (9th Cir.1989); United States v. Music Masters Ltd., 621 F.Supp. 1046, 1054 (W.D.N.C.1985) (same), aff'd sub nom. United States v. Masters, 816 F.2d 674 (4th Cir.1987) (per curiam); cf. Franklet v. United States, 578 F.Supp. 1552, 1559 (N.D.Cal.1984) (preponderance standard of proof under Sec *470 tion 6702), aff'd, 761 F.2d 529 (9th Cir.1985) (per curiam). But see Warner v. United States, 700 F.Supp. 532, 533 (S.D.Fla.1988) (requiring proof by clear and convincing evidence under Section 6701). We adopt the preponderance of the evidence standard for the reasons stated by those courts.

We address appellant’s other claims in a summary order filed this day.

We therefore affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 F.3d 469, 76 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6933, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 28824, 1995 WL 604599, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheldon-barr-v-united-states-ca2-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack