- 15 -
would cause him to be punished twice for the same offense in
violation of the double jeopardy clause. We disagree.
The double jeopardy clause “protects only against the
imposition of multiple criminal punishments for the same
offense.” Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93, 99 (1997). The
Supreme Court has held that Congress may impose both criminal and
civil sanctions with regard to the same acts without violating
the double jeopardy clause of the U.S. Constitution. Id.;
Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963); Spies v. United
States, 317 U.S. 492 (1943); Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391,
399 (1938); I & O Publg. Co. v. Commissioner, 131 F.3d 1314 (9th
Cir. 1997), affg. Ward v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-286;
United States v. Alt, 83 F.3d 779 (6th Cir. 1996); Grimes v.
Commissioner, 82 F.3d 286 (9th Cir. 1996); Ianniello v.
Commissioner, 98 T.C. 165, 176-187 (1992). The fraud penalties
“are provided primarily as a safeguard for the protection of the
revenue and to reimburse the Government for the heavy expense of
investigation and the loss resulting from the taxpayer’s fraud.”
Helvering v. Mitchell, supra at 401. The civil tax penalty for
fraud is not a punishment for purposes of the Double Jeopardy
Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Id. at 398; see also McNichols v.
Commissioner, 13 F.3d 432 (1st Cir. 1993), affg. T.C. Memo.
1993-61; Ianniello v. Commissioner, supra at 176-185.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011