How will we sustain a conviction against a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the crime of willful failure to pay tax?

We will sustain a conviction against a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting it if, " 'reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational [jury] could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.' " United States v. Bishop, 959 F.2d 820, 829 (9th Cir.1992) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)).

In order to establish the crime of willful failure to pay tax, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) the defendant had a duty to pay a tax, (2) the defendant did not pay the tax by the time required by law and (3) the failure to pay was willful. 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7203; United States v. Vroman, 975 F.2d 669, 671 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1611 (1993). The elements of willful failure to file a return are similar: (1) the defendant was required to file a return, (2) the defendant did not file a return by the required time and (3) the failure was willful. Id.

Zegzula only contests the sufficiency of the evidence to support the third element of each offense: willfulness. With regard to these offenses, willfulness means a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty. Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 201 (1991). Therefore, there must be evidence to support the jury's determination that Zegzula (1) knew that she was required to file tax returns and pay taxes and (2) voluntarily and intentionally did not do so.