- 12 -
relevant in determining whether this Court’s imposition of civil
tax penalties against petitioner violates the Double Jeopardy
Clause.5 Under these circumstances, petitioner has not
demonstrated substantial need for the protected document, and we
hold that petitioner is not entitled to compel production of the
CRL from respondent.
II. When Should Petitioner Have Reported the Income From His
Illegal Espionage Activities?
Petitioner contends that he constructively received most6 of
the unlawful espionage income in 1985, and, accordingly, he was
not required to report the income received and deposited during
the taxable years 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992. Respondent
contends that the income was reportable in 1989 through 1992, the
years petitioner actually received and deposited cash in his bank
accounts. Petitioner concedes that the funds deposited during
5 A detailed discussion of the Double Jeopardy Clause and
whether it applies in the setting of this case may be found
infra.
6 Petitioner contends that he constructively received almost
$2 million in 1985 and, in addition, that he received $10,000 per
month or $120,000 per year during each of the years at issue.
Other than his constructive receipt contention, petitioner does
not contend that we should modify respondent’s determination.
Respondent determined, on the basis of petitioner’s bank
deposits, that he underreported his income by $745,000, $65,000,
$91,000, and $187,000 for the taxable years 1989, 1990, 1991, and
1992, respectively. Petitioner, however, does not argue that we
should increase respondent’s determinations for the 1990 and 1991
years, which are less than the amounts petitioner has contended
that he received. Likewise, respondent did not assert an
increased deficiency for the 1990 or 1991 tax years.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011