Failure to Pay Employer's Share of FICA Is Not Included in Tax Loss for § 7202 Convictions for Failure to Withhold and Pay Over Employee's Share (5/27/26)

In United States v. Fecondo (3rd Cir. No. 24-1618 5/26/26) (NonPrecedential), CA3 here and GS here the court held that Fecondo’s crimes of conviction under § 7202 for failure to withhold and pay over the employee share (or portion) of FICA does not include the tax loss from the employer’s failure to pay the employer share.  (The employee share is sometimes called a "trust fund" tax because deemed to be held in trust to pay over to the IRS.) The employer share is not a tax collected from the employee (by deduction from wages) withheld within the scope of § 7202, the offenses of conviction. Thus, the unpaid employer share could not be included in the tax loss for the counts of conviction. Moreover, the Court held that the employer share is not “relevant conduct” for inclusion in the tax loss under the Sentencing Guidelines. The reasoning is that, although the two portions are related in the sense that they arise from the employer’s payment of wages, failure to pay a direct tax (employer’s share) is not related to the crime of failure to withhold and pay over the employee’s share for relevant conduct purposes. They are related but not relevant conduct to the counts of conviction.

I wonder if that works in reverse. Say the defendant was convicted of tax evasion, § 7201, for failure to pay the employer’s taxes (including the employer share of FICA). Could the failure to withhold and pay over the employee share of FICA be relevant conduct? 

More on United States v. Boler (8/25/24)

Yesterday, I wrote a blog entry on United States v. Boler, 115 F.4th 316 (4th Cir. 2024). Fourth Circuit Applies Auer/Kisor Deference to Include in Guidelines "Loss" the Commentary Inclusion of "Intended Loss" (Federal Tax Crimes Blog 8/24/24), here. (The blog entry was cross-posted on my Federal Tax Procedure Blog, here.) I think there is more that can and should be said about Boler. This post will be more of a “notice” post (like the fabled notice pleading lawyers at least of my generation learned about early in our law school careers).

1. The structure of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The 2023 version of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines is here. The Guidelines (with accompanying Commentary and Policy Statements) are promulgated by the U.S. Sentencing Commission which is “a bipartisan, independent agency located in the judicial branch of government, was created by Congress in 1984 to reduce sentencing disparities and promote transparency and proportionality in sentencing.” See website here. So, we know at the outset that it is a strange creature in our constitutional framework—the only agency located in the judicial branch. 

JAT Side Note: Readers of this blog will surely have some passing acquaintance with the difficulty going back to the 1940s of determining precisely what the Tax Court was, even though the statute said since its earliest days (then the Board of Tax Appeals) that the Tax Court was an independent agency in the Executive Branch. As I have noted, the nature of the Tax Court was an issue was much discussed with more heat than light in the 1940s, including in the consideration of the APA; the Supreme Court in Dobson v. Commissioner, 320 U.S. 489 (1943), reh. den., 321 U.S. 231 (1944), a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Jackson, the most tax procedure savvy Justice ever, held that the Tax Court was an agency rather than a court and applied Chevron-like deference to its statutory interpretations. I cover these issues in John A. Townsend, The Tax Contribution to Deference and APA § 706 (SSRN December 14, 2023), pp. 5-23)   https://ssrn.com/abstract=4665227.

2. Guidelines treated as Legislative Rules; Commentary Treated as Interpretive Rules. As an agency, albeit a Judicial Branch agency, the issue underlying Boler was the authority of the Guidelines and the Policy Statements and Commentary. In Stinson v. United States, 408 U.S., 36 (1993), GS here, the Court treated the Guidelines as analogous to legislative rules which make law pursuant to Congress’ delegation and treated Commentary as an interpretive rule interpreting the law (the law being the Guidelines). The Court said (p. 44-45, cleaned up to omit most case citations):

Although the analogy is not precise because Congress has a role in promulgating the guidelines, we think the Government is correct in suggesting that the commentary be treated as an agency's interpretation of its own legislative rule. The Sentencing Commission promulgates the guidelines by virtue of an express congressional delegation of authority for rulemaking, and through the informal rulemaking procedures in 5 U. S. C. § 553, see 28 U. S. C. § 994(x). Thus, the guidelines are the equivalent of legislative rules adopted by federal agencies. The functional purpose of commentary (of the kind at issue here) is to assist in the interpretation and application of those rules, which are within the Commission's particular area of concern and expertise and which the Commission itself has the first responsibility to formulate and announce. In these respects this type of commentary is akin to an agency's interpretation of its own legislative rules. As we have often stated, provided an agency's interpretation of its own regulations does not violate the Constitution or a federal statute, it must be given "controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation." Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U. S. 410, 414 (1945). 

Bowles v. Seminole Rock is the predicate for Auer deference which I now call Auer/Kisor deference because of the authoritative treatment of Auer deference in Kisor v. Wilkie, 588 U.S. 558 (2019). As I discussed in yesterday’s blog on Boler, the issue was the application of Auer deference to Guidelines’ Commentary (Application Note) defining the Guidelines term “loss” to include “intended loss.”

3. Did Auer/Kisor Deference Survive the Demise of Chevron. One of the issues I presented in yesterday’s blog was whether Auer/Kisor deference survived the demise of Chevron deference. I just want to make a few bullet points about that issue.

Third Circuit Holds That Tax Loss for Tax Crimes Sentencing Calculations is the Intended Loss Rather than Actual Loss (5/10/23)

In United States v. Upshur, 67 F.4th 178 (3rd Cir. 5/8/23), CA3 here and GS here, the Court held that the loss driving the Tax Table at U.S.S.G. § 2T4.1, here, is the intended loss rather than the actual loss to the Treasury.  The holding is driven by the language in the Guideline itself: “the tax loss is the total amount of loss that was the object of the offense (i.e., the loss that would have resulted had the offense been successfully completed).” § 2T1.1(c), here

That only became an issue because the Third Circuit held in United States v. Banks, 55 F.4th 246 (3d Cir. 2022) that, for larceny and related financial crimes in U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, the “loss” (meaning actual loss) is the measure. Both results were driven by the plain meaning of the respective terms in the Guidelines.

 The case highlights a possible disconnect between the sentencing for the two types of financial crimes. It is not apparent from the Guidelines why there is a difference, but as the plain text of both Guidelines provisions establishes, there is a difference.

The Court also said (Slip Op. 6 n.1):

   n1 Because we conclude that the text of § 2T1.1(c)(1) is unambiguous, we need not go further and examine its “structure, history, and purpose” or determine if the relevant Guidelines Commentary merits Auer deference. See Kisor, 139 S. Ct. at 2415.

Auer deference in the Guidelines context would be Commentary interpretation of the Guidelines (which for deference is treated like a notice and comment regulations).