- 39 -
conformity with the use of the same term in 18 U.S.C.
section 2516, to mean crimes or criminal conduct. However,
respondent is not using the contents of the intercepted
communications in this proceeding as proof of tax evasion
or some other tax offense. To the contrary, respondent is
using the intercepted communications in these civil tax
cases to satisfy the Commissioner's burden of proof with
respect to the fraud addition under section 6653(b)(1) and
(2). This is a civil, not a criminal, penalty. Helvering
v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391 (1938).
We acknowledge that it might also be possible to use
the intercepted communications as evidence of one or more
tax crimes but that is not the use to which they are being
put here. We do not believe that 18 U.S.C. section 2517(5)
is violated by disclosure of the intercepted communications
in a civil proceeding by reason of the fact that the same
communications could theoretically be used to prove
offenses other than those originally specified. See United
States v. Campagnuolo, supra at 1214-1215. It is difficult
to perceive how 18 U.S.C. section 2517(5) would be violated
in these cases, in view of the fact that the Government
does not seek to use the intercepted communications as
evidence of a tax offense. See United States v.
Page: Previous 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011