- 8 -
dent does not rely in respondent’s motion. For example, Mr.
Wilson alleges that his “fine & IRS obligation that was ruled by
Judge Legg [in the U.S. District Court] is settled and satisfied
and paid in full.” Assuming arguendo that Mr. Wilson has in fact
paid what he refers to as a “fine”9 and the restitution ordered
by the judgment in Mr. Wilson’s criminal tax proceeding, those
facts are not material to our resolving the issues raised in
respondent’s motion. The payment of a fine, an assessment, or
restitution for income tax evasion under section 7201 does not
bar imposition of the fraud penalty under section 6663.10 Addi-
tions to tax, like those imposed for fraud under section 6663,
are remedial, and not punitive. Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S.
391, 401 (1938); Thomas v. Commissioner, 62 F.3d 97, 100 (4th
Cir. 1995), affg. T.C. Memo. 1994-128; Ianniello v. Commissioner,
98 T.C. 165, 187 (1992). 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 investi-
gation and the loss resulting from a taxpayer’s actions or
omissions. Helvering v. Mitchell, supra.
9The judgment in Mr. Wilson’s criminal tax proceeding did
not order Mr. Wilson to pay a fine. That judgment, inter alia,
ordered Mr. Wilson to pay an assessment of $250.
10We note that respondent states in respondent’s reply that
“assuming that the income tax liabilities were paid, the peti-
tioners’ [sic] shall receive credit for the payment upon assess-
ment of the tax liabilities.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011