Epstein v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
The Board has jurisdiction and, when a petition is filed, it is its duty to review the administrative action of the Commissioner in determining a deficiency and penalties. It is not relieved of this duty by the fact that, in a criminal proceeding, the taxpayer was sentenced to pay and did pay the amount determined as the tax by the court.
1Opinion of the Court
*926OPINION.
Murdock:
The petitioner argues that all questions between the Commissioner and the taxpayer relating to taxes and penalties for 1925 have been settled in a criminal proceeding. The taxpayer there pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with an attempt to evade income tax upon his income for 1925. He was sentenced to pay the tax of $5,679.65 and he has paid it. The court was not concerned with the penalties here involved.
The present proceeding before the Board is quite different from the criminal proceeding above described. Charles E. Mitchell, 32 B. T. A. 1093. The Board has been…
2Cited by4 opinions
- COMMISSIONER OF INT. REVENUE v. Kilpatrick's EstateCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1944
- Amos v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1964
- Amos v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1964
- Epstein v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1936