Statute of Limitations

7.00 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

Updated September 2001

7.01    GENERALLY

7.01[1] Statutory Provisions

7.01[2] Limitations Periods for Common Tax Offenses

7.02    TRIGGERING OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

7.02[1] Filing a False Tax Return

      7.02[1][a] General Rule

      7.02[1][b] Definition of Timely Filed

7.02[2] Failing to File a Tax Return

7.02[3] Tax Evasion

7.02[4] Conspiracy

7.03    TOLLING PROVISION: FUGITIVE OR OUTSIDE 

U.S.

7.04    COMPLAINT TO EXTEND STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

7.05    SUSPENSION OF STATUTE: SUMMONS ENFORCEMENT

7.06    SUSPENSION OF STATUTE: OFFICIAL REQUEST FOR FOREIGN EVIDENCE

                         7.01  GENERALLY

7.01[1]  Statutory Provisions

      This section gives a general overview of statute of limitations issues 

in criminal tax cases.  For a more detailed discussion of a specific 

offense, reference should be made to the applicable chapter in this Manual.

      Section 6531 of Title 26 controls the statute of limitations periods 

for most criminal tax offenses.  This statute provides:

      No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any of the 

      various offenses arising under the internal revenue laws unless the 

      indictment is found or the information instituted within 3 years next 

      after the commission of the offense, except that the period of 

      limitations shall be 6 years --

      (1)   for offenses involving the defrauding or attempting to defraud 

      the 

United States

 or any agency thereof, whether by conspiracy or not, 

      and in any manner;

      (2)   for the offense of willfully attempting in any manner to evade 

      or defeat any tax or the payment thereof;

      (3)   for the offense of willfully aiding or assisting in, or 

      procuring, counseling, or advising, the preparation or presentation 

      under, or in connection with any matter arising under, the internal 

      revenue laws, of a false or fraudulent return, affidavit, claim, or 

      document (whether or not such falsity or fraud is with the knowledge 

      or consent of the person authorized or required to present such 

      return, affidavit, claim or document);

      (4)   for the offense of willfully failing to pay any tax, or make any 

      return (other than a return required under authority of part III of 

      subchapter A of chapter 61) at the time or times required by law or 

      regulations;

      (5)   for offenses described in sections 7206(1) and 7207 (relating to 

      false statements and fraudulent documents);

      (6)   for the offense described in section 7212(a) (relating to 

      intimidation of officers and employees of the 

United States

);

      (7)   for offenses described in section 7214(a) committed by officers 

      and employees of the 

United States

; and

      (8)   for offenses arising under section 371 of Title 18 of the United 

      States Code, where the object of the conspiracy is to attempt in any 

      manner to evade or defeat any tax or the payment thereof.

      Thus, under section 6531, the general rule is that a three-year 

statute of limitations exists for Title 26 offenses.  However, a six-year 

period applies to certain excepted offenses.  Section 6531 switches back and 

forth between enumerating the exception by specific Code reference and by a 

description of the offense.  For example, 26 U.S.C. §§ 7206(1), 

7202, 7212(a) and 7214(a), and 18 U.S.C. § 371 (conspiracy to evade 

taxes), are all specifically designated by code section as falling within 

the six-year exception.  Failure to file an income tax return and failure to 

pay a tax, 26 U.S.C. § 7203, however, are designated by description 

rather than code section. 

      Generally, the statute of limitations begins to run when an offense is 

completed.  Toussie v. 
United States
, 397 

U.S.

 112, 115 (1970). 

Prosecutors should be aware that not all tax offenses are completed upon the 

filing of a tax return.  For example, in a tax evasion case where the 

affirmative act of evasion is a subsequent false statement to IRS agents, 

the crime is completed at the time the false statement is made, not when the 

false return is filed.  

United States

 v. Goodyear, 649 F.2d 226 (4th 

Cir. 1981). Consequently, careful examination of the various elements is 

required to determine when a specific tax offense is completed.

7.01[2]  Limitations Periods for Common Tax Offenses

 Description of     Code Section        Statute of    Code Section            

 Offense                                Limitations                           

 Tax Evasion        26 U.S.C. § 7201    6 years       26 U.S.C. § 6531(2)     

 Failure to         26 U.S.C. § 7202    6 years       26 U.S.C. § 6531(4)     

 Collect, Account                       [FN1]                                 

 For or Pay Over                                                              

 Failure to Pay     26 U.S.C. § 7203    6 years       26 U.S.C. § 6531(4)     

 Tax                                                                          

 Failure to File a  26 U.S.C. § 7203    6 years       26 U.S.C. § 6531(4)     

 Return                                 [FN2]                                 

 Failure to Keep    26 U.S.C. § 7203    3 years       26 U.S.C. § 6531        

 Records                                                                      

 Failure to Supply  26 U.S.C. § 7203    3 years       26 U.S.C. § 6531        

 Information                                                                  

 Supply False       26 U.S.C. § 7205    3 years       26 U.S.C. § 6531        

 Withholding                                                                  

 Exemption                                                                    

 Certificate                                                                  

 File False Tax     26 U.S.C. §         6 years       26 U.S.C. § 6531(5)     

 Return             7206(1)                                                   

 Aid or Assist in   26 U.S.C. §         6 years       26 U.S.C. § 6531(3)     

 Preparation of     7206(2)                                                   

 False Tax Return                                                             

 Deliver or         26 U.S.C. § 7207    6 years       26 U.S.C. § 6531(5)     

 Disclose False                                                               

 Document                                                                     

 Attempt to         26 U.S.C. §         6 years       26 U.S.C. § 6531(6)     

 Interfere With     7212(a)             [FN3]                                 

 Administration of                                                            

 Internal Revenue                                                             

 Laws                                                                         

 Conspiracy to      18 U.S.C. § 371     6 years       26 U.S.C. § 6531(8)     

 Commit Tax                                                                   

 Evasion                                                                      

 Conspiracy to      18 U.S.C. § 371     6 years       26 U.S.C. § 6531(1)     

 Defraud the                                                                  

 Internal Revenue                                                             

 Service                                                                      

 False Claim for    18 U.S.C. §         5 years       18 U.S.C. § 3282        

 Refund             286/287                                                   

 False Statement    18 U.S.C. § 1001    5 years       18 U.S.C. § 3282        

          7.02  TRIGGERING OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

7.02[1]  Filing a False Tax Return

7.02[1][a]  General Rule

      The general rule is that the statute of limitations for the filing of 

a false tax return starts on the day the return is filed.  

United States

 

v. Habig, 390 

U.S.

 222, 223 (1968).  See also 

United States

 v. 

Kelly, 864 F.2d 569, 574 (7th Cir. 1989); 

United States

 v. 

Marrinson, 832 F.2d 1465, 1475-76 (7th Cir. 1987).  However, if the 

return is filed early (i.e., before the statutory due date), the 

statute of limitations does not start to run until the statutory due date.  

26 U.S.C. § 6513(c)(1) (1988).  See also Habig, 390 

U.S.

 

at 225. For example, if a tax return that is due to be filed on April 15, 

1999, is filed early on January 26, 1999, the statute of limitations on the 

return would not begin to run until April 15, 1999.

      Conversely, if a return is filed late (i.e., after the 

statutory due date), the statute of limitations begins running the day the 

return was filed. Habig, 390 

U.S.

 at 225.  Thus, if a return that was 

due on April 15, 1999, was filed late on June 1, 1999, the statute of 

limitations commences on June 1, 1999.

      In cases where an extension of time to file at a later date has been 

obtained, the statute of limitations begins to run from the date the return 

was filed, regardless of whether it was filed before or after the extension 

date. Habig, 390 

U.S.

 at 225-27.  Thus, where a return due on April 

15, 1999, was granted an extension to August 16, 1999, and actually filed on 

August 1, 1999, the statute of limitations begins to run on August 1, 1999.  

Similarly, if the extension was to August 16, 1999, and the return was filed 

October 1, 1999, the statute of limitations begins to run on October 1, 

1999.

      The statutory due date for filing a return depends upon the type of 

tax and the return involved.  Section 6072 of Title 26 sets out the 

statutory due dates for the filing of various tax returns.  Individual 

income tax returns made on a calendar year basis are due on April 15th of 

the following year.  26 U.S.C. § 6072(a) (1988).  Returns made on a 

fiscal basis are due on the fifteenth day of the fourth month of the 

following fiscal year.  26 U.S.C. § 6072(a) (1988).  Corporate returns 

made on a calendar year basis are due on March 15th of the following year.  

26 U.S.C. § 6072(b) (1988).  Corporate returns made on a fiscal basis 

are due on the fifteenth day of the third month of the following fiscal 

year.  26 U.S.C. § 6072(b) (1988).  Other types of returns may have 

unusual rules applicable only to that type of return.

7.02[1][b]  Definition of Timely Filed

      A tax return is generally considered timely filed when it is received 

by the Internal Revenue Service on or before the due date of the return.  

Typically, when a return is received on or before the statutory due date, it 

is not date stamped.  However, in cases where a return is filed after the 

statutory due date, the return is date stamped on the date received by the 

Service
 
Center

.  This date then becomes the date of filing for statute of 

limitation purposes.

      Prosecutors should be aware of the timely filed/timely mailed 

exception. Section 7502 of Title 26 deems the date of mailing by the 

taxpayer (as opposed to the date of receipt by the Internal Revenue Service) 

to be the date of filing where: (1) the return is sent by U.S. Mail and 

contains a 

U.S.

 postmark on or before the statutory due date; (2) the return 

is deposited in the mail addressed to the appropriate IRS office with 

postage prepaid; and (3) the return is delivered to the IRS after the date 

it was due.  26 U.S.C. § 7502 (1988). 

      In these circumstances, the return may be date stamped after the 

statutory due date and still deemed timely filed under section 7502.

7.02[2]  Failing to File a Tax Return

      Generally, the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the 

crime is complete.  Toussie v. 
United States
, 397 

U.S.

 112, 115 

(1970). In cases where the defendant has failed to file a tax return, the 

statute of limitations begins to run when the return is due.  Phillips v. 

United States

, 843 F.2d 438, 443 (11th Cir. 1988).  For example, if a 

tax return that was due to be filed on April 15, 1999, was not filed by the 

defendant, the statute of limitations on the return would not begin to run 

until April 15, 1999.

      If a defendant has obtained an extension of time to file a tax return, 

there is no duty to file until the extension date.  Phillips, 843 

F.2d at 442-43.  Thus, if a defendant obtained an extension to file from 

April 15, 1999, to August 16, 1999, and failed to file on the extension 

date, the statute of limitations would begin to run on August 16, 1999.

      The extension date applies only if the extension is valid.  An 

invalid, untimely application for automatic extension does not extend the 

statute of limitations beyond the statutory due date.  Phillips, 843 

F.2d at 443.

      Section 6081 of Title 26 governs extensions.  The IRS regulations for 

section 6081 detail the application procedures and extension times for 

filing various returns.  Treas. Reg. § 1.6081-1, et seq.  (26 

C.F.R.) Generally, the regulations provide for an automatic four-month 

extension of time for filing individual income tax returns.  Treas. Reg. 

§ 1.6081-4(a)(1). Prosecutors should be aware that an automatic 

extension of time does not operate to extend the time for the payment of any 

tax due on the return.  Treas. Reg. § 1.6081-4(b).  Thus, an extension 

request is valid only when accompanied by payment of the taxpayer's 

estimated tax liability.  Treas. Reg. § 1.6081-4(a)(4).

7.02[3]  Tax Evasion

      In order to commit tax evasion, the defendant must commit some 

affirmative act to evade a tax.  While this act most often is the filing of 

a false tax return, it may also be "any conduct the likely effect of which 

would be to mislead or conceal."  Spies v. 
United States
, 317 

U.S.

 

492, 499 (1943).

      The general rule is that the statute of limitations for tax evasion 

begins to run on the date the last affirmative act took place or the 

statutory due date of the return, whichever is later.  

United States

 v. 

DiPetto, 936 F.2d 96, 97 (2d Cir. 1991);  

United States

 v. 

Goodyear, 649 F.2d 226 (4th Cir. 1981); 

United States

 v. Carlson, 

235 F.3d 466, 470 (9th Cir. 2000); 

United States

 v. Payne, 978 

F.2d 1177, 1179 (10th Cir. 1992); 

United States

 v. Hunerlach, 197 

F.3d 1059, 1065 (11th Cir. 1999).

      Thus, in cases where the affirmative act of evasion is the filing of a 

false tax return, the statute of limitations begins to run on the date the 

return is filed or the statutory due date, whichever is later.   Prosecutors 

should be aware of the applicable early filing, late filing and extension 

filing rules enumerated in section 7.02[1][a], supra.

      Additionally, in cases where a false return is filed coupled with an 

affirmative act of evasion after the filing date, the statute of limitations 

commences on the date the last affirmative act took place or the statutory 

due date, whichever is later.  

United States

 v. Ferris, 807 F.2d 269, 

271 (1st Cir. 1986); 

United States

 v. Dandy, 998 F.2d 1344, 1355 (6th 

Cir. 1993); 

United States

 v. Trownsell, 367 F.2d 815, 816 (7th Cir. 

1966); 

United States

 v. Hunerlach, 197 F.3d 1059, 1065 (11th Cir. 

1999).  For example, if a false 2000 tax return was timely filed on April 

16, 2001, and the defendant engages in further affirmative acts of evasion 

(e.g., lying to agents of the IRS) on September 15, 2002, regarding 

his 2000 taxes, the statute of limitations would begin to run on September 

15, 2002.

      Further, in cases where no return is filed and some other act 

constitutes the affirmative act of evasion, the statute of limitations 

begins to run on the date the last affirmative act took place or the 

statutory due date of the return, whichever is later.  DiPetto, 936 

F.2d at 97; 

United States

 v. Williams, 928 F.2d 145, 149 (5th Cir. 

1991); Carlson, 235 F.3d at 470; Payne, 978 F.2d at 1179; 

United States

 v. Winfield, 960 F.2d 970, 973-74 (11th Cir. 1992).

      For example, if a 2000 tax return that was due to be filed on April 

16, 2001, was not filed by the defendant, and the defendant had committed an 

act of evasion (e.g., filing a false Form W-4 exemption certificate) 

on June 6, 2000, relating to his 2000 taxes, the statute of limitations 

would commence on April 16, 2001.  Conversely, if a 2000 tax return that was 

due to be filed on April 16, 2001, was not filed by the defendant, and the 

defendant commits an act of evasion (e.g., lying to agents of the 

IRS) on December 1, 2003, relating to his 2000 taxes, the statute of 

limitations would commence on December 1, 2003.

7.02[4]  Conspiracy

      The statute of limitations for a conspiracy to evade taxes under the 

offense clause of section 371 is six years.  Similarly, the statute of 

limitations for a Klein conspiracy under the defraud clause of 

section 371 is six years.  Both of these offenses are controlled by 26 

U.S.C. § 6531.  Occasionally, defendants charged with a tax conspiracy 

under section 371 will argue that a five-year statute of limitations should 

apply to section 371, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3282, which is the 

general limitations statute for Title 18 offenses.  The courts have 

routinely rejected this position and affirmed the application of the 

six-year limitations period to tax conspiracies.  See United 

States v. Aracri, 968 F.2d 1512, 1517 (2d Cir. 1992); 

United States

 

v. Vogt, 910 F.2d 1184, 1201 (4th Cir. 1990); 

United States

 v. 

Lowder, 492 F.2d 953, 955-56 (4th Cir. 1974); 

United States

 v. 

Fruehauf, 577 F.2d 1038, 1070 (6th Cir. 1978); 

United States

 v. 

White, 671 F.2d 1126, 1133-34 (8th Cir. 1982); 

United States

 v. 

Pinto, 838 F.2d 426, 435 (10th Cir. 1988); 

United States

 v. 

Brunetti, 615 F.2d 899, 901 (10th Cir. 1980); 

United States

 v. 

Waldman, 941 F.2d 1544, 1548 (11th Cir. 1991).

      The statute of limitations in a conspiracy begins to run from the date 

of the last overt act proved.  Grunewald v. 
United States
, 353 

U.S.

 

391, 397 (1957).  The government, however, is not required to prove that 

each member of a conspiracy committed an overt act within the statute of 

limitations. Hyde v. 
United States
, 225 

U.S.

 347, 369-70 (1912). 

See also United States v. Read, 658 F.2d 1225, 1234 (7th Cir. 

1981) (interpreting the Hyde decision).  Once the government shows a 

member joined the conspiracy, his continued participation in the conspiracy 

is presumed until the object of the conspiracy has been achieved. 

See, e.g., United States v. Juodakis, 834 F.2d 1099, 

1103 (1st Cir. 1987); 

United States

 v. Barsanti, 943 F.2d 428, 437 

(4th Cir. 1991); 

United States

 v. Krasn, 614 F.2d 1229, 1236 (9th 

Cir. 1980); 

United States

 v. Finestone, 816 F.2d 583, 589 (11th Cir. 

1987).  [FN4]

      However, a showing of withdrawal before the limitations period 

(i.e., more than 6 years prior to the indictment where the 

limitations period is 6 years) is a complete defense to conspiracy.  

Read, 658 F.2d at 1233.  The defendant carries the burden of 

establishing this affirmative defense.  Juodakis, 834 F.2d at 

1102-03; United States v. Borelli, 336 F.2d 376, 385 (2d Cir. 1964); 

United States

 v. Lash, 937 F.2d 1077, 1083 (6th Cir. 1991); United 

States v. Boyd, 610 F.2d 521, 528 (8th Cir. 1979); Krasn, 614 

F.2d at 1236; 

United States

 v. Parnell, 581 F.2d 1374, 1384 (10th 

Cir. 1978); Finestone, 816 F.2d at 589.  But see Read, 

658 F.2d at 1236 (burden of production on defendant, burden of persuasion 

remains on government to negate withdrawal defense); 

United States

 v. 

Jannoti, 729 F.2d 213, 221 (3d Cir. 1984) (initial burden on defense, 

then shifted to government); United States v. West, 877 F.2d 281, 289 

(4th Cir. 1989) (government retains burden of persuasion); 

United States

 

v. MMR Corp., 907 F.2d 489, 501 (5th Cir. 1990) (burden is two step 

process on defense and government); Manual of Model Criminal Jury 

Instructions for the Ninth Circuit, Instruction No. 8.5.4 (1997) 

(following Read).

      The courts have held that mere cessation of activity is insufficient 

to prove withdrawal.  Rather, some sort of affirmative action to defeat the 

object of the conspiracy is required.  See Juodakis, 834 F.2d 

at 1102; Lash, 937 F.2d at 1083; Krasn, 614 F.2d at 1236; 

United States

 v. Gonzalez, 797 F.2d 915, 917 (10th Cir. 1986); 

Finestone, 816 F.2d at 589.

        7.03  TOLLING PROVISION: FUGITIVE OR OUTSIDE 

U.S.

      Section 6531 of Title 26 contains its own tolling provision.  The 

statute provides:

      The time during which the person committing any of the various 

      offenses arising under the internal revenue laws is outside the United 

      States or is a fugitive from justice within the meaning of section 

      3290 of Title 18 of the United States Code, shall not be taken as any 

      part of the time limited by law for commencement of such proceedings.

26 U.S.C. § 6531 (1988).  Thus, the statute of limitations in Title 26 

cases can be tolled if the defendant is outside the 

United States

 or is a 

fugitive.

      "Outside the 

United States

" and "fugitive from justice" are 

interpreted in the disjunctive.  Mere absence from the 

United States

 without 

any intent to become a fugitive is sufficient to toll the statute of 

limitations.  

United States

 v. Marchant, 774 F.2d 888, 892 (8th Cir. 

1985).

      For example, in Marchant, 774 F.2d at 892, the Eighth Circuit 

held that defendant's eleven-day health and pleasure trip to 

Switzerland

 

tolled the statute of limitations under 26 U.S.C. § 6531.  According to 

the court, under section 6531 persons are "outside the 

United States

" 

whenever they cannot be served with criminal process within the jurisdiction 

of the 

United States

 under Rule 4(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal 

Procedure. Marchant, 774 F.2d at 892.

      The "fugitive from justice" clause in section 6531 refers to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3290.  This statute provides: "No statute of limitations shall extend 

to any person fleeing from justice."  The circuits are split as to the 

intent required under this statute.  The 

District of Columbia

 and Eighth 

Circuits have held that mere absence from the jurisdiction, regardless of 

intent, is sufficient to toll the statute of limitations.  In Re 

Assarsson, 687 F.2d 1157, 1162 (8th Cir. 1982); McGowen v. United 

States, 105 F.2d 791, 792 (D.C. Cir. 1939).

      The First, Second, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Ninth Circuits have held 

that intent to avoid arrest or prosecution must be proved before section 

3290 applies. Brouse v. 

United States

, 68 F.2d 294, 296 (1st Cir. 

1933); Jhirad v. Ferrandina, 486 F.2d 442, 444-45 (2d Cir. 1973); 

Donnell v. 

United States

,  229 F.2d 560, 563-65 (5th Cir. 1956); 

United States

 v. Greever, 134 F.3d 777, 780-81 (6th Cir. 1998); 

United States
 v. 

Marshall

, 856 F.2d 896, 897-900 (7th Cir. 1988); 

United States

 v. Wazney, 529 F.2d 1287, 1289 (9th Cir. 1976).

         7.04  COMPLAINT TO EXTEND STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

      Section 6531 of Title 26 contains a mechanism for extension of the 

statute of limitations period.  The statute provides:

      Where a complaint is instituted before a commissioner of the United 

      States within the period above limited, the time shall be extended 

      until the date which is 9 months after the date of the making of the 

      complaint before the commissioner of the 

United States

.

26 U.S.C. § 6531 (1988).  Thus, the government may file a complaint 

within the limitations period and effectively extend the statute period nine 

months.  

      However, section 6531 was not designed to grant the government greater 

time in which to make a case.  Jaben v. 
United States
, 381 

U.S.

 214, 

219 (1965).  Rather, it was intended to be used in situations where the 

government has made its case within the limitations period but cannot obtain 

an indictment within the limitations period because of the grand jury 

schedule. Jaben, 381 

U.S.

 at 219-20.  But see 

United States

 

v. O'Neal, 834 F.2d 862, 865 (9th Cir. 1987) (investigation and case 

preparation need not cease upon filing of complaint; whether government 

improperly invoked extension is tested by sufficiency of the complaint at 

the preliminary hearing).

      In Jaben, the Supreme Court addressed the requirements for a 

valid complaint under section 6531.  The Court held that a complaint must 

allege sufficient facts to support a probable cause finding that a tax crime 

has been committed by the defendant.  Jaben, 381 

U.S.

 at 220.  

Further, the government must fully comply with the complaint process and 

afford the defendant a preliminary hearing.  381 

U.S.

 at 220.

      As a practical matter, a complaint should only be filed for the year 

in which the statute of limitations would otherwise expire.  This procedure 

will not preclude development before the grand jury of counts for subsequent 

years in which the statute has not expired.  Prosecutors should be aware, 

however, that the filing of a complaint may trigger the Speedy Trial Act as 

to the charge which is the subject of the complaint and, as a practical 

matter, may shorten the time within which the government can act on the 

remaining tax years under investigation.  See 18 U.S.C. § 

3161(b).

      7.05  SUSPENSION OF STATUTE: SUMMONS ENFORCEMENT

      Section 7609(e)(1) of Title 26 provides for the suspension of the 

statute of limitations in certain types of summons enforcement proceedings.  

This statute provides:

      If any person takes any action as provided in subsection (b) 

      [intervenes] and such person is the person with respect to whose 

      liability the summons is issued (or is the agent, nominee, or other 

      person acting under the direction or control of such person), then the 

      running of any period of limitations . . . under section 6531 

      (relating to criminal prosecutions) with respect to such person shall 

      be suspended for the period during which a proceeding, and appeals 

      therein, with respect to the enforcement of such summons is pending.

26 U.S.C. § 7609(e)(1) (1988).  

      It is beyond the scope of this Manual to treat in detail the nuances 

of summons enforcement proceedings.  Any reliance on the suspension issue in 

this area requires a thorough analysis of section 7609, and particular care 

must be taken in measuring and documenting any period for which the statute 

of limitations is suspended.

7.06  SUSPENSION OF STATUTE: OFFICIAL REQUEST FOR FOREIGN EVIDENCE

      Criminal tax prosecutions increasingly involve the use of evidence 

obtained from foreign sources.  Section 3292 of Title 18 provides for the 

suspension of the statute of limitations to permit the 

United States

 to 

obtain foreign evidence.  This statute provides:

      (a)(1)  Upon application of the 

United States

, filed before return of 

      an indictment, indicating that evidence of an offense is in a foreign 

      country, the district court before which a grand jury is impaneled to 

      investigate the offense shall suspend the running of the statue of 

      limitations for the offense if the court finds by a preponderance of 

      the evidence that an official request has been made for such evidence 

      and it reasonably appears, or reasonably appeared at the time the 

      request was made, that such evidence is, or was, in such foreign 

      country.

                              .     .     .     .     .

      (b)  Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, a period of 

      suspension under this section shall begin on the date on which the 

      official request is made and end on the date on which the foreign 

      court or authority takes final action on the request.

      (c) the total of all periods of suspension under this section with 

      respect to an offense--

            (1) shall not exceed three years; and

            (2) shall not extend a period within which a criminal case must 

      be initiated for more than six months if all foreign authorities take 

      final action before such period would expire without regard to this 

      section.

18 U.S.C. § 3292 (1988).

      Letters rogatory, requests under a treaty or convention, or any other 

request made by a court or law enforcement authority of the 

United States

 

will qualify as an "official request."  18 U.S.C. § 3292(d).  The 

statute does not require that the "request expressly list by citation the 

alleged statutory violations in order for a foreign evidence request to pass 

muster under 18 U.S.C. § 3292."  

United States

 v. Neill, 952 

F.Supp. 831, 832 (D.D.C. 1996).

      While the maximum period for which the statute of limitations may be 

suspended for an offense is three years, the period begins to run when the 

government requests evidence from a foreign government.  "[T]he starting 

point for tolling the limitations period is the official request for 

evidence, not the date the  § 3292 motion is made or granted."  

United States

 v. Bischel, 61 F.3d 1429, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995).

      Likewise, the period ends when the foreign court or authority takes 

final action on the request.  "'[F]inal action' for purposes of § 3292 

means a dispositive response by the foreign sovereign to both the request 

for records and for a certificate of authenticity of those records."  

United States

 v. Bischel, 61 F.3d at 1434.  The government's 

satisfaction with the evidence provided is not determinative of whether 

there has been a final action. "However, when the foreign government 

believes it has completed its engagement and communicates that belief to our 

government, that foreign government has taken a 'final action' for the 

purposes of § 3292(b)."  

United States

 v. Meador, 138 F.3d 986, 

992 (5th Cir. 1998).  Such a communication from a foreign government does 

not preclude further inquiry by the 

United States

.  "If dissatisfied with a 

dispositive response from a foreign authority, the prosecutor need only file 

another request and seek a further suspension of the limitations period, 

subject to the ultimate three-year limitation on the suspension period." 

United States v. Meador, 138 F.3d at 993 (footnote omitted).

      All requests for foreign evidence in criminal tax investigations 

should be coordinated with the Criminal Appeals & Tax Enforcement Policy 

Section, Tax Division, and the Office of International Affairs, Criminal 

Division.  For further information on foreign evidence gathering in criminal 

tax cases, see Section 41.00 of this Manual.

FN1. There is a difference of opinion as to the limitations period for section 

7202 offenses.  The Second, Third, Ninth and Tenth Circuits hold that a 

six-year statute of limitations period applies.  

United States

 v. 

Evangelista, 122 F.3d 112, 119 (2d Cir. 1997) (reaff'g the holding of United 

States v. Mussacchia, 900 F.2d 493, 500 (2d Cir. 1990)); 

United States

 v. 

Gollapudi, 130 F.3d 66, 68-71 (3d Cir. 1997); 

United States

 v. Gilbert, No. 

00-10314, 2001 WL 1111928 (9th Cir. Sept. 24, 2001); 

United States

 v. Porth, 

426 F.2d 519, 521-22 (10th Cir. 1970).  At least one district court has held 

that a three-year limitations period applies.  

United States

 v. Block, 497 

F. Supp. 629, 630-32 (N.D. Ga.), aff'd, 660 F.2d 1086 (5th Cir. 1980).  The 

Tax Division takes the position that the Second, Third, Ninth and Tenth 

Circuits are correct, and that the six-year limitations period under 26 

U.S.C. § 6531(4) applies to section 7202.

FN2. A number of exceptions exist to the six-year rule.  Section 6531(4) 

exempts returns which are required to be filed under part III of subchapter 

A of chapter 61.  Part III refers to information returns required to be 

filed under 26 U.S.C. §§ 6031-6060, and includes, for example, 

partnership returns, returns of exempt organizations, subchapter S returns, 

estate returns and trust returns. Part III also includes returns relating to 

cash received in trade or business (Form 8300).  Reference should be made to 

these specific Code provisions for a more detailed discussion of applicable 

limitations periods.

FN3. Section 7212(a) refers to two types of offenses: (1) impeding employees 

of the 

United States

 acting in an official capacity; and (2) impeding the 

administration of the Internal Revenue laws.  The Tax Division believes the 

six-year limitations period applies to offenses under both prongs of section 

7212(a) pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6531(6).  Reference should be made to 

the discussion of this issue in the chapter dealing with Section 7212(a).  

See Chapter 17.00, infra.

FN 4. The government technically is not required to prove 

that each member of the conspiracy committed an overt act within the statute 

period.  However, in practice, the prosecutor should critically review those 

conspirators whose membership predates the limitations period, and be 

prepared to rebut a withdrawal defense coupled with a statute of limitations 

defense.