- 5 -
In Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391 (1938), the Supreme
Court in an income tax case held that civil fraud penalties are
remedial in nature when imposed upon a taxpayer who has been
tried, but not convicted, of criminal tax evasion. The Supreme
Court subsequently held that "under the Double Jeopardy Clause a
defendant who already has been punished in a criminal prosecution
may not be subjected to an additional civil sanction to the
extent that the second sanction may not fairly be characterized
as remedial, but only as deterrent or retribution." United
States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 448-449 (1989). However, Halper
involved medicare fraud under the Civil False Claims Act, and the
First Circuit has made clear that "To use Halper as a base for
vaulting into the tax arena would be to misapply the case and
distort its holding." McNichols v. Commissioner, 13 F.3d 432,
435 (1st Cir. 1993), affg. T.C. Memo. 1993-61. And this Court
has held that the imposition of section 6653(b) fraud additions
after a taxpayer has been criminally convicted pursuant to
section 7201 does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Ianniello v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 165, 183-185 (1992) ("The
additions to tax for fraud are a stated percentage of the dollar
amount of the tax deficiencies, and are therefore tailored to the
severity of the violation. * * * Thus, unlike United States v.
Halper, supra, the additions imposed against petitioners are
rationally related to the governmental costs incurred by reason
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011