United States v. Leonard Chavin and Martin Litwin

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that while there is no right to hybrid representation, the decision of whether to allow it “is a matter within the discretion of the district court”
• finding it plausible that the application note was deleted \because the new tax-loss definition specifically excludes consideration of unclaimed deductions on its face by defining tax loss as `the object of the offense.'\
• finding it plausible that the application note was deleted “because the new tax-loss definition specifically excludes consideration of unclaimed deductions on its face by defining tax loss as ‘the object of the offense.’ ”
• rejecting the defendant’s argument that tax loss should take into account legitimate, unclaimed deductions, which in that case would have reduced the defendant’s tax liability to roughly twenty-five percent of that determined to be the tax loss at sentencing
• \[T]he defendants' intention is embodied in the tax return that was filed with the IRS.\
• “[T]he defendants’ intention is embodied in the tax return that was filed with the IRS.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).