January 2019 LACBA MCLE Test and Answer Sheet

 

Test No. 284: A TAXING IMPEDIMENT

To access the article related to this test, please click here. The article will open in a separate window.
  
Instructions for Obtaining MCLE Credit

The Los Angeles County Bar Association certifies that this activity has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of 1 hour. To apply for credit, please follow the instructions.

1. Study the CLE article.

2. Answer the test questions by marking the appropriate boxes. Each question has only one answer.

3. Photocopies of this answer sheet may be submitted; however, this form should not be enlarged or reduced. Mail the answer sheet and the $25 testing fee ($35 for non-LACBA members) to:

Los Angeles County Bar Association
Attn: Los Angeles Lawyer MCLE Test
P.O. Box 55020
Los Angeles, CA 90055

Make checks payable to Los Angeles County Bar Association.

4. You can also fill in the test form and submit it directly to LACBA by clicking "Submit." To submit your test answers online you will need to pay by credit card. After submitting your answers you will be presented with a screen requesting payment information. This information will be submitted in a secure mode which will allow you to safely transmit your credit card number over the Internet. If you prefer not to pay by credit card, please print this answer sheet and submit your responses by regular mail.

5. Within six weeks, Los Angeles Lawyer will return your test with the correct answers, a rationale for the correct answers, and a certificate verifying the CLE credit you earned through this self-study activity.

6. For future reference, please retain the CLE test materials returned to you.


 

Test Sheet
 



  
Mark your answers to the test by clicking next to your choice.  All questions must be answered.  Each question has only one answer. This test is worth 1 hour of credit.*

1. The Omnibus Clause of 26 USC Section 7212(a) prohibits corrupt attempts to impede the due administration of the tax laws.


2. To obtain a conviction for a violation of the Omnibus Clause, the government only has to prove a nexus between a defendant’s conduct and a particular administrative tax proceeding.


3. The U.S. Supreme Court in Marinello v. United States granted certiorari to resolve a split in the opinions of the circuit courts.


4. Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Marinello only the Sixth Circuit had ruled that the defendant must be aware of an ongoing Internal Revenue Service investigation in order to be convicted of a violation of the Omnibus Clause.


5. Section 7212(a) only provides for a felony criminal tax violation.


6. The legislative history of Section 7212(a) focused on the need to deter threats and intimidation of IRS employees and members of their families.


7. The Supreme Court in Marinello eliminated all prosecutorial discretion in deciding what type of conduct can be charged as a violation of the Omnibus Clause.


8. 26 USC Section 7205 makes the willful filing of false W-4 forms illegal.


9. A conviction under Section 7205 does not preclude a conviction under any other statute for acts in connection with the willful filing of false W-4 forms.


10. A defendant who threatens to harm an IRS employee can be charged with a misdemeanor violation under Section 7212(a).


11. The Supreme Court in Marinello limited the government’s ability to charge a violation of the Omnibus Clause to conduct that involves bodily harm to an IRS employee or his or her family.


12. The Supreme Court’s rulings in both Marinello and United States v. Aguilar placed restraints on the reach of federal criminal obstruction statutes.


13. A conviction for obstructing due administration of justice under 18 USC Section 1503(a) requires proof of a nexus between defendant’s conduct and a particular judicial or grand jury proceeding.


14. An intentional failure to timely file a tax return, if required to do so, is not a violation of 26 USC Section 7203.


15. The Omnibus Clause does not include conduct such as routine, day-to-day work carried out in the ordinary course by the IRS, such as the review of tax returns.


16. Knowingly interfering with an ongoing IRS investigation is a violation of the Omnibus Clause.


17. Destroying business records related to an IRS audit, after receiving notice of such audit, is conduct that can be charged under the Omnibus Clause.


18. Knowledge of an ongoing tax proceeding, or at least, the reasonable foreseeability of the commencement of such a proceeding, is a necessary element of a violation of the Omnibus Clause.


19. The Supreme Court in Marinello found that Congress did not intend the Omnibus Clause to be a catchall provision that was applicable to the entire Internal Revenue Code.


20. The government may not charge pre-nexus corrupt acts, such as the destruction of books and records, as an affirmative willful attempt in violation of Section 7201.

 


Before clicking the Submit button, please verify that all questions have been answered. An error message will appear if not all questions are answered.

* The Los Angeles County Bar Association has been approved as a continuing legal education provider of Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California. This self-assessment activity will qualify for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of one hour.