- 19 -
States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435 (1989). A civil sanction is
punishment for double jeopardy purposes if it is not solely
remedial but also serves punitive goals of deterrence or
retribution. Department of Revenue v. Kurth Ranch, 511 U.S. at
__, 114 S. Ct. at 1944; United States v. Halper, supra at 448-
449; see Barnette v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. 341, 346-347 (1990)
(discussing Halper).
Additions to tax such as section 6651(a) are not punishment
for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause. The U.S. Supreme
Court has said:
The remedial character of sanctions imposing additions
to a 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. [Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S.
391, 401 (1938).]
See Miller v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-249 (increased
interest under section 6621(c) not punishment); Dillon v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1981-583. The accuracy-related penalty
under section 6662(a) and (c) for negligence is also remedial.
See Helvering v. Mitchell, supra at 399-406 (the 50-percent
addition to tax for civil fraud is remedial and not punitive for
double jeopardy purposes); United States v. Alt, ___ F.3d ___
(6th Cir., May 15, 1996); Ianniello v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 165,
176-177 (1992). The accuracy-related penalty under section
6662(a) is 20 percent. It is less severe than the addition to
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011