Does the Government meet its burden of proof in a tax evasion case (as opposed to failure to file) where the financial records of the accused are truthful, accurate, and contain no fraud?

question presented is: Does the Government meet its burden of proof in a tax evasion case (as opposed to failure to file) where the financial records of the accused are truthful, accurate, and contain no fraud? Question No. 2 The sentence in this case was enhanced because of alleged “sophisticated means” used by Stubbs to evade taxes. Under the Guidelines, this enhancement is applicable when the accused uses “especially complex or especially intricate offense conduct” and includes conduct such as “hiding assets or transactions, or both, through the use of fictitious entities, corporate shells, or offshore financial accounts.” Stubbs did none of these things and his financial records were accurate and transparent. The question presented is: Does the Government meet its burden of proving the existence of the “sophisticated means” enhancement in a case where the accused does not hide or conceal any aspect of his financial dealings? Question No. 3 The sentence in this case was enhanced on the basis that Stubbs failed to report income exceeding $10,000.00 from criminal activity. Under the Guidelines, “criminal activity” means any conduct constituting a criminal offense under federal, state, local or foreign law. Here, the district court applied the “criminal activity” enhancement based on evidence showing, at most, civil fraud. The question presented for review is: Does the Government meet its burden of proving the existence of the “criminal activity” enhancement when it fails to allege or prove any facts of a criminal offense? i