Restitution was independently imposed under the mandatory statute

Plain-English summary

A defendant was convicted of a Title 18 conspiracy to defraud the United States and a Title 26 offense involving a false return. The conduct alleged for the tax count was entirely included within the conduct alleged for the conspiracy count. Because restitution was imposed for the Title 18 offense as well as the tax offense, the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act required it. The IRS concluded that the district court had authority to impose the restitution as an independent part of the sentence, rather than solely as a condition of supervised release.

Ruling snapshot

• Question: Was the restitution independently imposed as part of the sentence or only as a supervised-release condition?
• Outcome: Advice given: it was an independent sentence component.
• Key authorities: IRC § 6201(a)(4); Mandatory Victims Restitution Act

Full text (IRS public release)

ID: CCA_2021030517001644
UILC: 6201.01-06

Number: 202125018
Release Date: 6/25/2021
From: ----------------------
Sent: Friday, March 5, 2021 17:00:16
To: -------------
Cc: --------------------------------------------------------------
Bcc:
Subject: RE: F13308-Restitution-St Louis FO--------MO

This is not a Westbrooks case. The defendant was convicted of two counts alleged in
the superseding indictment, Count 1, a Title 18 crime, and Count 2, a Title 26 crime.
Count 1 was conspiracy to defraud the United States, and one of the affirmative acts in
furtherance of the conspiracy was preparing a return on -----------------------, on behalf of -
------, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
Count 2 was aiding and abetting the filing of a false return, filed -----------------------, on
behalf of ------, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------. Accordingly, the conduct alleged for Count 2 is entirely embraced by the conduct
alleged for Count 1. The restitution, being imposed for the Title 18 offense as much as
for the Title 26 offense, was mandatory under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act,
and it was within the district court’s power to impose it as an independent part of the
sentence and not solely as a condition of supervised release.

Please call if you have any further questions on this matter.