- 20 -
tax for fraud. We conclude that the accuracy-related penalty
under section 6662(a) and (c) is not punishment for purposes of
the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Sections 6651(a) and 6662(a) are quite different than the
Montana drug tax, the imposition of which the U.S. Supreme Court
held violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. Department of Revenue
v. Kurth Ranch, 511 U.S. at __, 114 S. Ct. at 1944. Montana
imposed almost $900,000 in taxes and penalties against six
individuals who pleaded guilty to possession or storage of
dangerous drugs. Id. at __, 114 S. Ct. at 1942, 1946-1947.
Montana assessed the tax on illegally possessed marijuana and
hash oil which had been confiscated. The tax equaled about 800
percent of the market value of the confiscated drugs. The tax
applied only in cases in which the State had imposed a criminal
penalty for possession of illegal drugs. Id. at __, 114 S. Ct.
at 1947. The Supreme Court held that the Montana drug tax is the
equivalent of criminal punishment for purposes of the Double
Jeopardy Clause. Id. at __, 114 S. Ct. at 1948. Sections
6651(a) and 6662(a) and (c) are very different from the Montana
drug tax; those sections are remedial and intended to compensate
the Government for a taxpayer’s noncompliance. Thus, Department
of Revenue v. Kurth Ranch, supra, does not control here. See
United States v. Alt, supra.
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