John Rodgers v. United States

facts,” which established willful blindness under the two-part test of Global-Tech

Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754, 769 (2011). But that conclusion does

not encompass the full meaning of “willful” under § 6694(b)(2)(A). The court must

determine whether Rodgers acted with the specific intent to understate the reported

tax liabilities. And because the district court did not make that finding, we vacate

the order and remand for further proceedings on whether the willfulness standard is

satisfied. Willfulness under § 6694(b)(2)(A), including specific intent, may be

established by circumstantial evidence. See United States v. Conforte, 624 F.2d 869,

875 (9th Cir. 1980) (holding that willfulness may be inferred from all the facts and

circumstances in part because “[d]irect proof of a taxpayer’s intent to evade taxes is

rarely available”).

VACATED and REMANDED

3