a preponderance of the evidence. In re Griffith, 206 F.3d 1389, 1396 (11th Cir. 2000) (citing Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279, 287-88, 111 S.Ct. 654, 112 L.Ed.2d 755 (1991)). Conduct Requirement of § 523(a)(1)(C) With regard to the conduct element, “the plain statutory language simply requires that the debtor have ‘attempted in any manner to evade or defeat tax.’ ” In re Fretz, 244 F.3d 1323, 1329 (11th Cir.2001) (emphasis added) (internal citation omitted). This means that the government can satisfy the conduct requirement by showing that Long engaged either in acts of commission or culpable acts of omission. In re Jacobs, 490 F.3d 913, 921 (11th Cir.2007). The failure to file tax returns, coupled with the failure to pay taxes, satisfies the conduct requirement. Fretz, 244 F.3d at 1329 (<HOLDING>). See also In re Mitchell 2009 WL 1370996
holding that the lawyers failure to file tax returns and pay taxes over three years constituted conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice holding that debt or who failed to file income tax returns and failed to pay tax satisfied  523alcs conduct requirement despite no affirmative conduct to evade taxes holding the conduct element satisfied where debtor earned income during the tax years at issue but did not make any estimated tax payments had inadequate or no withholdings and latefiled his tax returns holding the conduct element satisfied where debtor failed to timely file tax returns and failed to pay taxes for those years holding that a conviction under a new york state statute for failure to file tax returns requires proof of a specific intent to evade taxes and as such can be used for impeachment purposes consistently with the third circuit holding in cree