- 8 -
Browning-Ferris Industries of Vt., Inc. v. Kelco Dis-
posal, Inc., 429 [sic] U.S. 257 * * * (1989), at 268
* * *. The Eighth Amendment is not limited to criminal
cases. Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 * * *
(1993), and, thus is applicable to civil tax penalty
cases such as Petitioners [sic]. See, e.g., Henry v.
United States, 73 F.Supp.2d 1303 (N.D. Fla. 1999).
(The Court at fn2 states, “I recognize that the [�
6651] penalties and interest may be possibly subject to
a constitutional challenge,. . . .”
It is stipulated that Petitioner has forfeited a
prior timely tax payment of $61,151 because he failed
to file timely his 1995 Form 1040. Stip. �8. As a
result of this forfeiture he was not able to apply this
1995 overpayment to his 1996 Form 1040 tax liability,
and thus, is obligated to pay an additional $40,882.69.
Stip. �9.
Thus, prior to imposing any �6651 penalty, the
Petitioner has already been penalized $102,033.69. An
additional penalty under �6651 in addition to the
$102,033.69 Petitioner has already been penalized is
excessive under the Excessive Fines Clause.
Additions to tax, like those imposed for fraud under former
section 6653(b) and section 6663 and for failure to file timely
and to pay timely under section 6651(a)(1) and (2), are remedial,
and not punitive. See Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 401
(1938); Ianniello v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 165, 187 (1992).2
Such additions to tax are provided primarily as a safeguard for
the protection of the revenue and to reimburse the Government for
the significant expense of investigation and the loss resulting
from a taxpayer’s actions or omissions. See Helvering v. Mitch-
ell, supra.
2See also Healey v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-260.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011