- 11 -
seeking a new trial with respect to his criminal convictions.
Petitioner argues that because there was no new information to
support the reopening letter, and because he "believes in his
innocence of the charges contained in the Notice of Deficiency",
that the Court should dismiss the notice of deficiency as being
in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth
Amendment.
The ultimate focus of the Double Jeopardy Clause is
"punishment". Ianniello v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 165, 177 (1992)
(interpreting Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391 (1938)). In
Ianniello, we determined that a civil tax proceeding, addressing
liability for the addition to tax for fraud, did not have the
intention or effect of punishing the taxpayer, and was properly
characterized as remedial, and we concluded that such a
proceeding did not constitute a second prosecution, or multiple
punishment. See Helvering v. Mitchell, supra.8
Petitioner's characterization of the events leading up to
the issuance of the notice of deficiency does not distinguish
this case from Ianniello v. Commissioner, supra. The reasons
that led to the reopening letter, and the subsequent notice of
deficiency, are irrelevant to the issue of double jeopardy, as
the outcome remains the same. Section 6201 states that respondent
8 See also Miller v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-249;
McNichols v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-120 and T.C. Memo.
1993-61, affd. 13 F.3d 432 (1st Cir. 1993).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011