Decision will be entered under
FOLEY, Judge: After concessions, the issues for decision are whether petitioners failed to report income and are liable for
During 2004 and 2005 Mr. Campion was a night shift team leader and custodian of evidence with the Drug Enforcement Agency's Atlanta Airport Task Force. On March 1, 2006, Mr. Campion was indicted in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (District Court) on seven counts of converting property of another as an officer or employee of the United States, seven counts of embezzlement of public funds, and two counts of money laundering. Mr. Campion was subsequently indicted, pursuant to
Respondent audited petitioners' 2004 and 2005 returns and, using the bank deposits method, determined that petitioners had unreported income of $204,417 and $21,791 relating to 2004 and 2005, respectively. In addition, respondent determined that petitioners were liable for
*148 Respondent, on April 10, 2009, sent petitioners a notice of deficiency relating to 2004 and 2005. Petitioners timely filed their petition with the Court. At the time the petition was filed, Mr. Campion resided in Virginia and Ms. Campion resided in Florida.
OPINIONPetitioners contend that the District Court determined their 2004 tax liability and that respondent is collaterally estopped from relitigating this amount. 2 Although Mr. Campion pleaded guilty to willfully making and subscribing a false return, petitioners' 2004 tax liability was not an essential element of the Government's case and was not actually 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 146">*148 litigated. See
We sustain respondent's determinations of petitioners' unreported income relating to 2004 and 2005. Petitioners were required, but failed, to maintain adequate records. See
Respondent further determined that petitioners are liable for
Contentions we have not addressed are irrelevant, moot, or meritless.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered under
Footnotes
1. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2. Collateral estoppel, rather than the related doctrine of res judicata, may apply when a civil case follows a criminal case. See
Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391">303 U.S. 391 , 303 U.S. 391">397, 58 S. Ct. 630">58 S. Ct. 630, 82 L. Ed. 917">82 L. Ed. 917, 1938-1 C.B. 317 (1938) ("The difference in degree of the burden of proof in criminal and civil cases precludes application of the doctrine of res judicata.");United States v. Barnette, 10 F.3d 1553">10 F.3d 1553 , 10 F.3d 1553">1560-1561↩ (11th Cir. 1994).3. Pursuant to
sec. 7491(a) , the burden of proof may shift to the Commissioner if the taxpayer introduces credible evidence with respect to any factual issue. This section is inapplicable because petitioners failed to maintain records. Seesec. 7491(a)(2)↩ .