- 16 -
or limb". In Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 399-404
(1938), the United States Supreme Court stated:
Congress may impose both a criminal and a civil
sanction in respect to the same act or omission; for
the double jeopardy clause prohibits merely punishing
twice, or attempting a second time to punish
criminally, for the same offense. The question for
decision is thus whether section 293(b) [the
predecessor of section 6653(b)] imposes a criminal
sanction. That question is one of statutory
construction. * * *
* * * * * * *
The remedial character of sanctions imposing additions
to tax has been made clear by this Court in passing
upon similar legislation. They are provided primarily
as a safeguard for the protection of the revenue and to
reimburse the Government for the heavy expense of
investigation and the loss resulting from the
taxpayer's fraud. * * * [Citations and fn. ref.
omitted.]
See Ianniello v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 165, 176-185 (1992). The
imposition of the addition to tax for fraud is not barred by
double jeopardy.
Respondent also determined that petitioners are liable for
the section 6661 addition to tax for 1986. Petitioners bear the
burden of proving that respondent’s determination is not correct.
Rule 142(a); Cluck v. Commissioner, 105 T.C. 324, 339 (1995).
Section 6661(a) provides for an addition to tax on underpayments
attributable to a substantial understatement of income tax.
Section 6661(b)(2)(A) defines the term “understatement” as being
the excess of the amount of tax required to be shown on the
return for the taxable year over the amount shown on the return.
An understatement is substantial if it exceeds the greater of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011