- 5 -
fines.
Petitioners' argument is premised on the notion that the
$250,000 criminal fine did not constitute punishment, that it
served only remedial purposes, and that it should be treated as
restitution. Petitioners then appear to argue that, because
respondent routinely would reduce outstanding civil income tax
deficiencies by the amount of restitution, petitioners should be
allowed to reduce the civil fraud additions to tax by the
$250,000 criminal fine.
Petitioners also argue that the sentencing factors listed in
18 U.S.C. section 3622, which Federal District Court judges take
into account in imposing fines under 18 U.S.C. section 3623,
support petitioners' contention that the $250,000 criminal fine
imposed on petitioner should be regarded as remedial in nature
and as restitution for petitioners' civil fraud additions to tax.
Respondent disagrees with petitioners' characterization of
the $250,000 criminal fine as remedial in nature. Respondent
argues that Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. section 3623 to provide
Federal District Court judges with alternative means to punish
criminals and to deter future criminal behavior. Because
criminal fines and civil fraud additions to tax serve different
congressional purposes, respondent argues that petitioners should
not be allowed a credit against the civil fraud additions to tax
for petitioner's $250,000 criminal fine. We agree with
respondent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011