As the state court found that Boulware had not gifted the funds to Lee and that the funds belonged to HIE, he contends that he had no federal tax liability for those funds. The jury convicted Boulware of renumbered count 10 of the indictment, conspiracy to make false statements to a federally-insured financial institution, but acquitted him of the substantive charges (counts 11-14).
The judgment provides in relevant part:The district court granted both motions, explaining that "the characterization of this transfer as a gift is not relevant to the ultimate issues of the case" and that the jury should decide the case based on the testimony of the witnesses. O'Connor, Honolulu, HI, for the defendant-appellant and cross-appellee.Boulware started M & S Vending in 1979, while working as a telephone repairman. Boulware and his wife realized that it would take time for HIE to buy out her interest. Finally, a second superseding indictment ("the indictment"), amended the factual allegations of the conspiracy count.According to Boulware, he intended to use most of the money at issue in this case to buy out his wife's marital interest in HIE and the money was therefore not, or at least arguably not, taxable to him. § 982(a) (2) provides:Opinion by Judge TASHIMA; Dissent by Judge SILVERMAN.The court also imposed a three-year term of supervised release, fines, and forfeiture of $495,814Boulware argues that the district court improperly excluded evidence of a Hawaii civil judgment, which determined that HIE owned the money that Boulware had given to Jin Sook Lee between 1987 and 1994. The state court ordered Lee to return the money to HIE.The government did call Boulware's ex-wife, Mal Sun Boulware, to the stand, but she did not necessarily help the government's case. For these reasons, we hold that the state court judgment was admissible under Rule 803(15) as a document that affected an interest in property.Boulware argues that even if the government did make out a prima facie case, he met his burden of going forward with the evidence by testifying that the diversions were loans and were accounted for as such on HIE's books. At that time, due to irreconcilable differences, Michael Boulware and Mal Sun Boulware agreed that they would get divorced because their marriage was beyond redemption. Finally, he contends that his sentence must be vacated, because the district court failed to resolve factual disputes regarding the amount of the tax loss. The court sustained the government's objections to questions about the judgment. (A) section ... 1014 ... of this title, affecting a financial institution ...COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED Robert J. Finally in 1997, a Hawaii state-court jury found that the money Lee was holding belonged to HIE.
[I]f it be shown that a man has a business or calling of a lucrative nature and is constantly, day by day and month by month, receiving moneys and depositing them to his account and checking against them for his own uses, there is most potent testimony that he has income, and, if the amount exceeds exemptions and deductions, that the income is taxable.The defense case was that Boulware did not underreport income in any of the relevant tax years, because HIE maintained beneficial ownership of all of the funds in question.