- 18 -
they are mutually exclusive. See sec. 6662(b). The accuracy-
related penalties and the fraud penalty may, however, be asserted
in the alternative. Where the fraud penalty is not in issue or
where a court decides fraud is not applicable, the negligence
penalty may be considered and/or found. It is rather obvious
that fraudulent concealment goes far beyond and is inclusive of
“negligence or disregard of rules or regulations.” Here,
petitioner was convicted of conspiracy to defraud the Government
under 18 U.S.C. sec. 371, and he admits that he intentionally
concealed his unlawful espionage income. Additionally, his
constructive receipt argument falls far short of the legal
standard. We hold that petitioner is liable for the section
6662(a) negligence penalty in each of the taxable years 1989,
1990, 1991, and 1992.
IV. Is Petitioner Constitutionally Protected by the Double
Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment From the Assessment of Any
Tax or Civil Penalties Based Upon His Unlawful Espionage Income?
Petitioner contends that imposing an income tax liability on
the income he received from his espionage activities and/or
imposing a negligence penalty under section 6662 violates the
Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution that no person shall “be subject for the same
offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb”.10 In
10 Petitioner argues that the requirement that he pay the
(continued...)
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011