Hunter Biden Misdemeanor Tax Charges Dismissed for Now; Could Face the Same or New Ones Soon

On Thursday, a Delaware federal judge formally dismissed misdemeanor tax charges against Hunter Biden. However, the president’s son is expected to face new charges or the same ones soon.
The decision by Maryellen Noreika, U.S. District Court Judge, was expected after a failed plea agreement last month between President Joe Biden’s son and federal prosecutors.

Special counsel David Weiss’s office, citing venue problems that wouldn’t have been an issue if he had pleaded guilty to the case as had been initially expected, moved to dismiss the charges last week.

Hunter Biden had previously agreed to plead guilty to misdemeanor charges related to his failure to pay income taxes earlier in the year in return for prosecutors recommending a probation sentence. But, the agreement fell apart over confusion during the plea hearing about the judge’s questions about the deals and separate gun charge.

As U.S. Attorney for Delaware, Weiss was the main prosecutor at the time. Since then, he has been named special counsel.

“After the hearing, the parties continued negotiating but reached an impasse. A trial is therefore in order,” said prosecutors last week.

They indicated they would likely bring charges against Hunter Biden in Washington, D.C., or California. “The Government, in the exercise of its prosecutorial discretion, is considering what tax charges to bring in another district and may elect to bring the same charges outlined in the instant information or different ones,” said the filing.

Judge has yet to rule on gun charge issue

The judge hasn’t yet ruled on an issue involving the separate gun charge, which is a felony that alleged Biden illegally owned a Colt Cobra .38 Special handgun during a period he was a drug user. Under the terms of the canceled plea deal, the charge would be dropped in two years if he had honored the terms of a diversion agreement with prosecutors.

Attorneys for Hunter Biden said last week that they consider that deal — which contained a section granting him protection from some other potential charges — still in effect because both sides signed it.
Prosecutors say the deal isn’t in effect because the agreement also needed to be signed off by the probation office, and it wasn’t.