- 6 -
We disagree. None of those cases involved criminal and
civil liability under the Internal Revenue Code. Their impact in
the Federal income tax arena has been considered by the Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in United States v. Alt, 83 F.3d
779 (1996), and by the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in
Thomas v. Commissioner, 62 F.3d 97 (1995), affg. T.C. Memo. 1994-
128, and by this Court in several cases, see, e.g., Louis v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-257; Price v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1996-204. In each case, the respective court upheld the
additions to tax for fraud as remedial and ruled that the Supreme
Court cases relied upon by petitioner did not apply. See also
Gordon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-36, in which we reach the
same conclusion based on the above-quoted language from Helvering
v. Mitchell, supra.
We see no need to repeat the analysis set forth in the
opinions in those cases. It is enough to point out that each of
them accorded Helvering v. Mitchell, supra, continuing vitality
as the basic authority for their conclusion that the Double
Jeopardy Clause did not apply and distinguished the cases relied
upon by petitioner.4 Moreover, any doubt about their treatment
of Mitchell disappears when one takes into account the Supreme
Court's most recent pronouncement on the issue of double jeopardy
4 See also United States v. Brennick, 908 F. Supp. 1004 (D.
Mass. 1995), which sets forth an extensive analysis in respect of
the continued vitality of Mitchell.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011