Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.

Claim: Man who cited religious reasons for not paying his income taxes “has won a historic lawsuit against the IRS.”

Q1: Did Michael Bowman won a historic lawsuit against the IRS ?
A1: The judge dismissed the charge without prejudice, meaning prosecutors could seek a new indictment to replace it.  Maddux said the government was considering its options.

Bowman still faces four counts of willful failure to file tax returns, a misdemeanor.

Q2: Did  Michael Bowman  filed a motion asking the court to dismiss the whole case ?
A2: Defendant, Michael Bowman, through his attorney, Matthew 
Schindler, moves the Court to dismiss the indictment alleging violations of 
26 USC §§ 7201 and 7203 because, as applied to him, these criminal charges 
violate his right to maintain his conscience and freely practice his religion as 
guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 
USC § 2000bb-1 (The Religious Freedom Restoration Act “RFRA”). This 
motion is further supported by the following Memorandum of Law

Q3: What was  Michael Bowman alleged to have done ?
A3: Prosecutors alleged that Bowman hasn't filed an accurate or timely income tax return since at least 1997. When the Oregon Department of Revenue stepped up its enforcement and began garnishing money from Bowman's bank account in January 2012, Bowman changed his method of financial transactions. He began cashing out his work checks, leaving a minimum balance in his bank account, between January 2012 through September 2014, according to the government. Defendant's altered bank behavior removed his income from the reach of taxing authorities and allowed him to avoid payment of assessed taxes
user
justification: According to the article linked to the first answer one felony charge was dismissed because, as the judge said, "Just cashing checks is not evasion".
Four misdemeanor charges remain.
I don't think that's a "historic" victory.

verdict: 'Refuted'
assistant