- 15 -
violates the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the
Constitution. In support of this contention, petitioners cite
United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435 (1989).
The Double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals only against
the imposition of multiple criminal punishments for the same
offense. Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93, 99 (1997)
(abrogating United States v. Halper, supra, on this issue); see
also Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 399 (1938). The
imposition of a liability for a Federal income tax deficiency is
remedial and is not a criminal punishment. See Ames v.
Commissioner, 112 T.C. 304, 317 (1999); see also Ianniello v.
Commissioner, 98 T.C. 165, 178-180 (1992); cf. McNichols v.
Commissioner, 13 F.3d 432, 435-436 (1st Cir. 1993), affg. T.C.
Memo. 1993-61. A fortiori, the denial of a deduction (i.e., the
item that gave rise to the income tax deficiency in this case) is
not a criminal punishment. See, e.g., Murillo v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1998-13, affd. without published opinion 166 F.3d 1201
(2d Cir. 1998). Accordingly, denying petitioners a loss
deduction for the cash that petitioner forfeited does not violate
the Double Jeopardy Clause.
We have considered the arguments of the parties that were
not specifically addressed in this opinion. Those arguments are
either without merit or irrelevant to our decision.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011