Thomas Y. Wallace - Page 12




                                       - 12 -                                         
          which (3) could not have been decided without resolving the                 
          issue.”   In re Raiford, 695 F.2d 521, 523 (11th Cir. 1983); see            
          Williams v. Bennett, 689 F.2d 1370, 1381 (11th Cir. 1982).  “The            
          use of a criminal conviction as conclusive of an issue in                   
          subsequent civil litigation, though not universally accepted, is            
          well established today.”  In re Raiford, 695 F.2d at 523.  For              
          purposes of applying collateral estoppel, there is no difference            
          between a judgment of conviction based upon a guilty plea and a             
          judgment of conviction rendered after a trial on the merits.  See           
          Arctic Ice Cream Co. v. Commissioner, 43 T.C. 68, 75 (1964); see            
          also United States v. Killough, 848 F.2d 1523, 1528 (11th Cir.              
          1988).                                                                      
               It is well settled that a conviction under section 7201                
          collaterally estops a taxpayer from denying fraud for purposes of           
          former section 6653(b).3  See Blohm v. Commissioner, 994 F.2d               
          1542, 1554 (11th Cir. 1993), affg. T.C. Memo. 1991-636; Amos v.             


               3 The substance of sec. 6653(b), before amendment by sec.              
          7721(a) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989 (OBRA              
          1989), Pub. L. 101-239, 103 Stat. 2106, 2395, now appears in                
          secs. 6651(f) and 6663, which are effective generally for returns           
          the due date of which is after Dec. 31, 1989.  Before amendment             
          by OBRA 1989, sec. 6653(b)(1) provided:                                     
                    In General.--If any part of any underpayment * * * of             
               tax required to be shown on a return is due to fraud, there            
               shall be added to the tax an amount equal to 75 percent of             
               the portion of the underpayment which is attributable to               
               fraud.                                                                 







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011