Court rejects former attorney’s attempt to overturn tax convictions and restitution order

United States v. Michael Little. United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. No. 24-2048.

A taxpayer cannot use a writ of error coram nobis to argue tax issues that have already been rejected on appeal, especially if the supposed “new evidence” was known years before.

Holding

The Second Circuit upheld the denial of Michael Little’s petition for a writ of error coram nobis and turned down his request for an evidentiary hearing. The court also rejected his challenges to the $4.2 million restitution order and his claims of judicial bias.

Why It Matters

• The decision reinforces the narrow scope of federal courts' application of coram nobis relief after a criminal tax conviction becomes final.

• Prior appellate rulings remain binding under the mandate rule. Taxpayers cannot recycle the same arguments through collateral attacks framed as “new evidence.”

• The opinion shows continued judicial reluctance to revisit restitution calculations in criminal tax cases absent a clear statutory or constitutional error.

• The Court treated speculative “double taxation” claims as insufficient to reduce criminal restitution tied to tax evasion conspiracies.

Key Facts

Michael Little, a disbarred attorney proceeding without counsel, was convicted in 2018 for participating in a conspiracy involving the heirs of businessman Harry Seggerman.

The scheme involved efforts to evade estate taxes and reporting obligations tied to Seggerman’s estate. Little was also convicted for failing to file U.S. tax returns.

He received:

• A 20-month prison sentence.

• A restitution order exceeding $4.2 million.

After his conviction became final, Little filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. Coram nobis is an extraordinary post-conviction remedy available in limited situations after a defendant is no longer in custody.

Little argued:

• An agreement between the IRS and U.K. tax authorities eliminated his obligation to file U.S. tax returns for 2008 through 2010.

• The restitution order improperly created a “double taxation” windfall.

• The district judge was biased and should have recused himself.

The District Court denied relief. Little appealed.

Statutory Framework

• A writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinary judicial remedy used to correct fundamental errors in criminal proceedings after custody ends.

• The petitioner must show:

  • compelling circumstances,

  • valid reasons for not seeking earlier relief, and

  • continuing legal consequences from the conviction.

• The mandate rule bars relitigation of issues already decided by an appellate Court.

• Criminal restitution in tax cases may include losses tied to the full scope of a conspiracy.

• Under §102(a), inheritances generally are excluded from gross income for income tax purposes.

Arguments

Taxpayer argued:

• An IRS agreement with U.K. tax authorities established that he had no U.S. filing obligation for certain years.

• The agreement constituted newly discovered evidence.

• The restitution order improperly included taxes connected to an heir’s inheritance and therefore created a double-taxation windfall.

• The trial judge demonstrated bias through adverse rulings.

Government argued:

• The alleged “new evidence” was known to Little years earlier.

• The Second Circuit had already rejected substantially identical arguments in prior proceedings.

• Coram nobis cannot be used as a substitute for appeal.

• The restitution calculation properly reflected losses caused by the conspiracy.

• Judicial rulings alone do not establish bias.

Court’s Reasoning

• The Court emphasized that coram nobis relief is available only in “extreme cases” involving fundamental errors.

• Little failed to establish that the IRS-U.K. agreement was newly discovered evidence because he knew about it in 2020 and 2021.

• A prior Second Circuit panel had already rejected arguments based on the same agreement during an earlier Rule 33 appeal.

• The mandate rule barred relitigation of issues already resolved by the appellate Court.

• Coram nobis cannot function as a substitute for direct appeal or repeated collateral attacks.

• The Court found no plain error in the restitution calculation.

• The alleged double-taxation issue was speculative because inheritances generally are excluded from income under §102(a).

• The estate assets tied to Patricia Seggerman’s inheritance were still part of the concealed estate involved in the conspiracy.

• The Court rejected the judicial bias claim because adverse rulings alone rarely establish judicial partiality.

Result

The Second Circuit affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief and left the criminal convictions and $4.2 million restitution order intact.

The Takeaway

This case was not a big change in tax law. Instead, it serves as a reminder that federal courts strictly limit post-conviction challenges in criminal tax cases. If an appellate court has already rejected an argument, it is very hard to bring it up again as “new evidence.”

The decision also shows that courts rarely change restitution awards in broad tax conspiracy cases unless there is a clear legal problem. People often hope to find a loophole that will erase criminal tax liability years later, but federal appellate courts are determined to prevent that.

List of Citations

• United States v. Rutigliano, 887 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2018)
  Defined the narrow scope of coram nobis relief.

• United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904 (2009)
  Described coram nobis as an extraordinary remedy.

• United States v. Mandanici, 205 F.3d 519 (2d Cir. 2000)
  Confirmed that coram nobis is not a substitute for an appeal.

• Foont v. United States, 93 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 1996)
  Limited collateral attacks through coram nobis.

• Yick Man Mui v. United States, 614 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 2010)
  Explained the mandate rule barring relitigation.

• United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (2010)
  Defined the plain-error review standard.

• Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994)
  Held that judicial rulings alone rarely establish bias.

• §102(a)
  Excludes inheritances from gross income for income tax purposes.