- 9 -
Respondent determined deficiencies in income tax
resulting from unreported income earned from 1989 to 1993,
as well as amounts due for failure to pay estimated tax.
Discussion
Petitioner contends that, under the principles of
collateral estoppel, respondent is barred from contesting
the District Court finding that petitioner's constitutional
rights were violated in the search and seizure. We assume,
for purposes of this proceeding, that petitioner's
constitutional rights were violated by the seizure at the
Bellingham airport. Cf. Houser v. Commissioner, 96 T.C.
184, 204 (1991).
Assuming that his rights were violated, petitioner
contends that the exclusionary rule must be applied if:
(1) tax violations were within Reese's "zone of primary
interest", (2) there was a demonstrable understanding that
information gathered by one agency could be utilized by
another, or (3) Reese did not act in good faith during the
search and seizure. Petitioner further contends that all
three of these things occurred and that all evidence
obtained as a result of the seizure at the Bellingham
airport should be suppressed in this case. Respondent
maintains that none of the three circumstances describe the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011