resources to honor all of one’s obligations” (citation, internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted)). Here, non-payment of Storey’s tax obligations is the only evidence relevant to the conduct requirement. Storey filed federal tax returns for the years in question, and there is no dispute that she did so timely and accurately. She simply failed to pay the taxes she owed. This is not enough by itself to render her tax debt nondischargeable. Unless her non-payment was “knowing and deliberate,” the tax obligations were discharged in her bankruptcy. See Stamper, 360 F.3d at 557 (noting that “a ‘knowing and deliberate’ nonpayment provides the basis for determining that the tax debt is non-dischargeable”); but see Haas v. IRS (In re Haas), 48 F.3d 1153, 1158 (11th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>), overruled in part by Griffith v. United
holding that the burden is on the plaintiff holding that there is some mental state requirement for the third material element of  1326 recognizing that if there is evidence upon which one may reasonably infer an element of the crime the evidence is sufficient to sustain that element and where reasonable minds could differ the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction holding that the burden is on the plaintiff to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction holding that mere nonpayment is not sufficient to satisfy the conduct element of  523a1c and thereby the governments burden without regard to debtors mental state