- 9 -
it is well settled that the doctrine of collateral estoppel does
not apply where the degree of proof in the earlier proceeding is
higher than the degree of proof in the later proceeding. See
Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391 (1938); Neaderland v.
Commissioner, 52 T.C. 532, 541-542 (1969) (acquittal on charge of
criminal tax fraud does not estop the Commissioner from later
attempting to prove the taxpayer's liability for civil tax
fraud), affd. 424 F.2d 639 (2d Cir. 1970).
Consistent with the preceding discussion, it is evident that
petitioner's reliance on the doctrine of collateral estoppel is
misplaced. The District Court's findings respecting the amounts
of petitioner's proceeds and profits from his illegal activities
do not work an estoppel in the present action because the
Government was required to prove its criminal forfeiture case
beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas petitioner bears the burden of
proving the amount of his taxable income for the years in issue
in this civil proceeding by a preponderance of the evidence.
3. Substantiation of Net Operating Loss
Petitioner contends that, because the period of limitations
has expired with respect to the 1987 taxable year, the Court
should find as a matter of law that petitioner is not required to
substantiate the NOL reported in his 1987 tax return and carried
back to the taxable years 1985 and 1986. We disagree.
Section 6214(b) provides in pertinent part:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011