- 4 - section 2 (1994). The District Court fined petitioner $30,000 and sentenced him to 3 years’ probation. In its judgment, the District Court imposed the maximum fine indicated under the applicable sentencing guideline range ($3,000 to $30,000) but departed from the guideline imprisonment range (12 to 18 months) “based on diminished capacity due to the defendant’s bipolar disorder.” Subsequently, petitioner consented to respondent’s assessment of $224,455 underlying tax liability for 1994 but disputed respondent’s proposed imposition of a section 6663 civil fraud penalty. By notice of deficiency, respondent determined that pursuant to section 6663, petitioner is liable for a fraud penalty of $167,918 for 1994. Discussion Respondent has moved for summary judgment on the ground that petitioner’s criminal conviction under section 7201 collaterally estops him from contesting his liability for the fraud penalty under section 6663(a). Petitioner contends that a finding of fraud under section 6663 is negated because in his criminal proceeding the sentencing court found and the Government stipulated that petitioner committed the offense while suffering from a diminished mental capacity. On this ground, petitioner opposes respondent’s motion for summary judgment and has cross moved for summary judgment.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: March 27, 2008