- 11 -
concurrently. It is for these reasons that generally the courts
have held the civil action in abeyance while the criminal
prosecution goes forth. See id. at 12 n.27. See also United
States v. Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($8,850)
in United States Currency, 461 U.S. 555 (1983), where the Supreme
Court held that the delay by the United States in instituting a
civil forfeiture action pending resolution of criminal charges
was reasonable.
While the general policy of the Internal Revenue Service may
be not to proceed with the civil aspects, that policy must be
implemented in each case. In Campbell v. Eastland, 307 F.2d at
487, a case involving civil discovery while criminal proceedings
were pending, the Court of Appeals noted:
The very fact that there is a clear distinction between
civil and criminal actions requires a government policy
determination of priority: which case should be tried
first. Administrative policy gives priority to the public
interest in law enforcement. This seems so necessary and
wise that a trial judge should give substantial weight to it
in balancing the policy against the right of a civil
litigant to a reasonably prompt determination of his civil
claims or liabilities.
Just as a trial judge must balance the competing interests,
respondent's officers must decide whether the civil aspects in a
particular case outweigh the interests in the criminal aspects.
The decision here was made by not issuing the notice of
deficiency and allowing the normal periods of limitations to
expire. A decision is made after an evaluation of the criminal
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011