- 5 -
the Fifth Amendment. Petitioner's contentions have been recently
addressed and rejected in Louis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-
257, and Ward v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-286. Without
recanvassing our complete analysis of the problem in Louis, we
think it is sufficient to note that we there called attention to
a very recent Ninth Circuit case that dealt with the issue,
Grimes v. Commissioner, 82 F.3d 286, 289-290 (9th Cir., Apr. 17,
1996), where it was stated:
Grimes argues that the imposition of fraud penalties
renders the proceeding quasi-criminal. Two recent
Supreme Court cases addressing the definition of
"punishment" for the purposes of the Double Jeopardy
Clause give this argument a superficial appeal. See
Department of Revenue v. Kurth Ranch, U.S. ,
, 114 S. Ct. 1937, 1948 (1994) (finding that a Montana
state tax on marijuana constitutes punishment); United
States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435 (1989) (the "civil"
label does not determine whether a sanction is
punishment).
Both of these decisions, however, cite with
approval Helvering v. Mitchell, [38-1 USTC � 9152], 303
U.S. 391 (1938), where the Court found the Tax Code's
civil fraud penalty remedial in nature and not punitive
for double jeopardy purposes. See Kurth Ranch,
U.S. , , 114 S. Ct. at 1946 n. 16; Halper, 490
U.S. at 442-43 * * * [Fn. ref. omitted.]
And the Sixth Circuit even more recently reached the same result.
United States v. Alt, 83 F.3d 779 (6th Cir., May 15, 1996). We
reject petitioner's double jeopardy argument.
2. Section 6661
The only year now in controversy to which section 6661
applies is 1987. Section 6661 provides:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011