- 11 - a more exacting showing is required to establish the requisite wrongful intent in this civil proceeding than in the criminal proceeding. See Moore v. United States, 360 F.2d at 356 (“the first proceeding being criminal in nature, it follows that the burden of proof met by the Government there was more exacting than that required of it in this civil case”). In conclusion, the issue of petitioner’s fraudulent intent under section 6663(a) is foreclosed by collateral estoppel. Petitioner does not dispute the underlying tax underpayment. We are satisfied that there is no genuine issue of fact requiring a trial in this case. Accordingly, we hold that imposition of the section 6663(a) fraud penalty is proper. We shall grant respondent’s motion for summary judgment and deny petitioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment. An appropriate order and decision will be entered.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11Last modified: March 27, 2008