Lukovsky v. C.I.R., 82-1655
| Decision Date | 05 November 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-1655,82-1655 |
| Citation | 692 F.2d 527 |
| Parties | 82-2 USTC P 9704 George W. and Elizabeth L. LUKOVSKY, Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
George W. and Elizabeth L. Lukovsky, appellants, pro se.
Glenn L. Archer, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Michael L. Paup, Gilbert S. Rothenberg, Steven I. Frahm, Attys., Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for appellees.
Before HEANEY and BRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge.
Taxpayers George and Elizabeth Lukovsky appeal from the tax court's dismissal for lack of prosecution of their petition contesting an income tax deficiency assessment. At issue is whether the Lukovskys are entitled to use their fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination to avoid substantiating the deductions they have claimed on their tax return. We affirm the tax court's dismissal.
On January 9, 1981, the IRS sent a notice of deficiency to the Lukovskys, informing them that they owed an additional $4,814.50 in income tax for the tax year ending December 31, 1977. The deficiency resulted from the IRS's disallowance of a number of business deductions that the Lukovskys were unable or unwilling to substantiate. The Lukovskys petitioned to contest the deficiency on April 23, 1981.
At a hearing before the tax court on March 22, 1982, the Commissioner filed a motion to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute. The motion cited the Lukovskys' failure to attend scheduled pretrial conferences on September 9 and October 23, 1981; their failure to attend a stipulation of facts conference set for February 4, 1981; and their failure to produce any evidence substantiating the contested deductions. At the hearing, the Lukovskys admitted that they had not furnished the IRS with any of the requested information, but they argued that the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination protected them. The tax court granted the IRS's motion to dismiss, reasoning that the absence of a pending or threatened criminal prosecution militated against the Lukovskys' invoking the fifth amendment to avoid furnishing information to the IRS. The Lukovskys appealed.
The tax court has repeatedly held that "[t]he privilege against self-incrimination does not apply where the possibility of criminal prosecution is remote or unlikely." Roberts v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 834, 838 (1974). The fifth amendment may not be used as a subterfuge to avoid...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Wodtke
...liability may be verified. 26 U.S.C. § 6001; Carr Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 698 F.2d 952 (8th Cir.1983); Lukovsky v. Commissioner, 692 F.2d 527 (8th Cir.1982). Taxpayers are not exempt from this record-keeping requirement because they are farmers. See 26 C.F.R. § A taxpayer has th......
-
Gillen v. Commissioner
...1270 (9th Cir. 1982). As the Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit recently stated in Lukovsky v. Commissioner 82-2 USTC ¶ 9704, 692 F. 2d 527 (8th Cir. 1982), affg. an order of this Court, "The fifth amendment may not be used as a subterfuge to avoid paying Essentially blank or "Porth-typ......
-
Ueckert v. C.I.R., 83-1782
...v. New Jersey State Commission of Investigation, 406 U.S. 472, 478, 92 S.Ct. 1670, 1675, 32 L.Ed.2d 234 (1972); Lukovsky v. Commissioner, 692 F.2d 527 (8th Cir.1982), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 1776, 76 L.Ed.2d 347 (1983); Edwards v. Commissioner, 680 F.2d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir.19......
-
McFarland v. Commissioner
...1983) (Fourth, Fifth, and Seventh Amendments), affg. Dec. 37,969, 76 T.C. 1027 (1981); Lukovsky v. Commissioner 82-2 USTC ¶ 9704, 692 F. 2d 527 (8th Cir. 1982) (Fifth Amendment), affg. per curiam an order of this Court; Edwards v. Commissioner 82-2 USTC ¶ 9472, 680 F. 2d 1268 (9th Cir. 1982......