- 4 -
OPINION
Petitioner does not contest the amounts of the
deficiencies or the additions to tax. Rather, petitioner
contends that respondent's determination violates the Double
Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,2
in that he has already been punished for his actions through
imprisonment and forfeiture of all of the proceeds of his
illegally obtained income.
The Double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals against
multiple punishments for the same offense. United States v.
Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 440 (1989). "The Double Jeopardy Clause
does not bar 'a civil action by the Government, remedial in its
nature, arising out of the same facts on which the criminal
proceeding was based'." Ianniello v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 165,
177 (1992) (quoting Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 397
(1938)).
The impact of the Double Jeopardy Clause on civil tax
disputes has been the subject of continuous scrutiny for many
years. The seminal case involving both a deficiency and an
2 The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides
"nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice
put in jeopardy of life or limb". U.S. Const. amend. V.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011