Court Opinion

ID: 9516872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 23:54:53.66043+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:45.058774
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I would affirm the entire decision of the Tax Court in this case. Mary's double jeopardy claim is properly denied in light of the fact that she was not subjected to a first jeopardy in the eriminal prosecution which was initiated and then dismissed. Keith's double jeopardy claim, however, has merit. At the time the Tax Court ruled, Keith had been punished as a result of the eriminal proceeding against him, and property of Keith and Mary worth roughly $40,000 had been seized by the Marion County Sheriff pursuant to the tax warrant the Department issued with its jeopardy assessment. I agree with the Tax Court that the holding in Department of Revenue v. Kurth Ranch, -- U.S. --, 114 8.Ct. 1937, 128 L.Ed.2d 767 (1994), commands the conclusion reached by the Tax Court that further tax collection efforts by the Department would subject Keith to a second punishment prohibited by the Double Jeopardy Clause. I find this case different from today's case of Bryant v. State (1995), Ind., 660 N.E.2d 290, in which the taxpayer, while being first subjected to a punishment in a criminal prosecution, had at no time paid any of the tax nor had the taxpayer been subject to any collection efforts by revenue agents.