- 4 -
Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963); Spies v. United
States, 317 U.S. 492 (1943); Grimes v. Commissioner, 82 F.3d 286
(9th Cir. 1996), affg. Ward v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-286.
In Spies v. United States, supra at 495 (citing Helvering v.
Mitchell, supra), in explaining that Congress may impose both
criminal and civil sanctions in enforcing the tax laws, the
Supreme Court stated that “invocation of one does not exclude
resort to the other.” See also United States v. Sabourin, 157
F.2d 820, 821 (2d Cir. 1946); and Schwener v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1987-594, for the same proposition.
In light of Helvering v. Mitchell, supra, and the subsequent
cases, in Schachter v. Commissioner, supra, we rejected
petitioners' double jeopardy argument, and we sustained
respondent’s determination of the civil fraud additions to tax.
In the current computational dispute, petitioners do not
again dispute -- under the double jeopardy clause of the U.S.
Constitution -- imposition of both criminal and civil sanctions
with regard to the same acts. Rather, petitioners argue that the
$250,000 criminal fine that was imposed on petitioner should be
allowed as a credit against the civil fraud additions to tax for
1985, 1986, 1987, and 1988 that were determined by respondent
against petitioner and that were sustained in our prior opinion.
Helvering v. Mitchell, supra, and its progeny do not
directly address whether taxpayers have a right to credit against
civil fraud additions to tax the amount of related criminal
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011