Stacey

MEMORANDUM **

1. The evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find that Ronald and Ele *17 cia Stacey (together, the “Defendants”) had a tax due and owing. The certificates of assessment were neither challenged nor proved to be invalid. See United States v. Voorhies, 658 F.2d 710, 715 (9th Cir.1981) (recognizing certificates of assessment as adequate evidence of tax liability).

2. Whether or not Mrs. Stacey knew of the tax deficiency at the time of filing, she was on notice that a deficiency existed once the notices of deficiency were sent to her and her husband. See Roszkos v. Commissioner, 850 F.2d 514, 517 (9th Cir.1988) (describing the notice of deficiency as a “vehicle of notification.”).

3. There was also sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find that Ronald Stacey knowingly participated in the conspiracy to defraud the United States. He was a member of CPA and his tax evasion conduct was consistent with the actions of other CPA members. His knowing participation can be inferred from the circumstantial evidence admitted at trial. See United States v. Recio, 371 F.3d 1093, 1106 (9th Cir.2004).

4. The district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to…