- 7 -
in the forfeiture context, where the Court reaffirmed the basic
principle involved, namely, that the ultimate test is whether the
Congress intended the civil penalty to be punishment and held
that the forfeiture involved did not fall within the punishment
category with the result that the Double Jeopardy Clause did not
apply. United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. , 116 S.Ct. 2135
(1996). In reaching that conclusion, the Supreme Court analyzed
in detail Austin v. United States, supra, United States v.
Halper, supra, and Department of Revenue of Montana v. Kurth
Ranch, supra, in the course of which it referred, without
qualification, to and quoted from Helvering v. Mitchell, supra.
See United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. at , 116 S.Ct. at 2148-
2149.
In sum, we hold that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not
preclude respondent from asserting the deficiencies and the
addition to tax for fraud. A fortiori, it does not preclude the
imposition of the addition to tax under section 6654, which does
not arise out of petitioner's criminal activity, and in any event
is properly characterized as remedial and not punishment. See
Hawkins v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-441, affd. without
published opinion 66 F.3d 325 (6th Cir. 1995).
To reflect our holding herein and petitioner's concessions
in respect of the amounts set forth in the notice of deficiency,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Last modified: May 25, 2011