United States of America v. Josiah Mator, Jr., also known as Josiah Mator

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-2258
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Josiah Mator, Jr., also known as Josiah Mator
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City
____________
Submitted: January 12, 2024
Filed: May 23, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, KELLY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Josiah Mator, Jr., helped people prepare their tax returns but inflated their
deductions. Then he lied about what clients paid him. Although he claims these
were innocent mistakes, the evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
otherwise. See 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)–(2) (prohibiting the preparing and filing of false
tax returns).
I.
What first caught the IRS’s attention was Mator’s practice of routing client
refunds to his own bank account. When investigators spot-checked some of the
returns he had prepared, they found more red flags, including a pattern of
unreimbursed business expenses and refundable education credits.
A return prepared for one couple was a prime example. It listed $26,000 in
business expenses and an education credit, even though neither of them was in
college. And then Mator did not include their payment as income on his own return.
Nor did he report the cash, checks, and direct deposits he received from others.
Facing two counts of “[w]illfully” filing a false return, 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)–
(2), Mator went to trial. Right before the jury found him guilty of both counts, the
district court1 denied his motion for a directed verdict. His position is that there was
no proof that he willfully misrepresented anything. See United States v. Mathews,
761 F.3d 891, 893 (8th Cir. 2014) (explaining that “willfulness” requires “a
voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty” (quoting Cheek v. United
States, 498 U.S. 192, 201 (1991))).
II.
The evidence tells a different story. See id. (“review[ing] the sufficiency of
the evidence de novo” and “accepting all reasonable inferences that support the
verdict” (citation omitted)). For one thing, according to the couple, Mator never
1 The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
asked about their expenses, much less requested receipts or other documentation to
substantiate them. For another, he admitted to investigators that he adjusted some
of the numbers to get the results he wanted. In his view, what he did was fine because
he had been doing it for years. “[A] rational jury,” however, “could have” concluded
otherwise and “discredited his alleged good faith belief.” Id. at 894 (quotation marks
omitted).
There was also proof he knew better than to omit reportable income from his
own returns. See 26 U.S.C. § 61(a)(1)–(2) (defining “gross income” to include
business income and “[c]ompensation for services”). After all, several clients
claimed that Mator charged them. See United States v. Morris, 723 F.3d 934, 940
(8th Cir. 2013) (explaining that “a consistent pattern of not reporting income” can
show willfulness (citation omitted)). It was up to the jury to decide whether he knew
that their payments were compensation for his services, not just expressions of
gratitude or goodwill. See Mathews, 761 F.3d at 894.
III.
We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --