                        T.C. Memo. 1997-12



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT


                ROBERT K. LAHODNY, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 7875-93.              Filed January 7, 1997.



     Robert K. Lahodny, pro se.

     Christine V. Olsen, for respondent.




                        MEMORANDUM OPINION


     LARO, Judge:   Respondent moves for partial summary judgment,

arguing that petitioner's plea of guilty to criminal fraud under

section 7201 collaterally estops him from rebutting her

determination that he is liable for civil fraud under section

6653(b) for the same years.   Respondent supports her motion with
                               - 2 -

two exhibits, namely:   (1) A grand jury indictment (Indictment)

of petitioner and Andrew Winslow Willis, and (2) petitioner's

plea agreement (Plea Agreement) to the charges contained in the

Indictment.   The Court ordered petitioner to respond to

respondent's motion on or before November 19, 1996.    Petitioner

failed to do so.

     The Court must decide whether petitioner is collaterally

estopped from contesting that deficiencies in his income taxes

for the years at issue were due to fraud within the meaning of

section 6653(b) on account of his plea of guilty to a violation

of section 7201.   We hold he is.   Unless otherwise stated,

section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for

the years in issue.   Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules

of Practice and Procedure.   Dollar amounts have been rounded to

the nearest dollar.

                             Background

     Petitioner petitioned the Court to redetermine respondent's

determination of deficiencies of $168,198 and $32,696 in his 1979

and 1980 Federal income taxes, respectively, and $84,099 and

$16,348 additions to those respective taxes under section

6653(b).   Petitioner resided in Texarkana, Texas, when he

petitioned the Court.

     Petitioner was a defendant in the criminal case United

States v. Lahodny, which was docketed in the U.S. District Court

for the Southern District of California.    In connection with this
                               - 3 -

case, petitioner pleaded guilty on June 6, 1985, to tax evasion

for 1979 and 1980 in violation of section 7201.     Petitioner was

represented by counsel when he pleaded guilty.

     Petitioner had been indicted in or about May 1983 with

respect to the criminal matter.    The Indictment charged that

petitioner was a partner in a major marijuana importation and

distribution network during the subject years, and that

petitioner used offshore entities and foreign bank accounts to

"launder" profits from that activity.     The Indictment charged

that petitioner knowingly and willfully attempted to evade

Federal income tax for 1979 and 1980 by filing false and

fraudulent Federal income tax returns for those years in

violation of section 7201.   The Indictment charged that

petitioner's 1979 taxable income was approximately $346,098, and

that his 1980 taxable income was approximately $80,152.

     Respondent determined that petitioner received unreported

drug proceeds of $346,098 and $80,152 in 1979 and 1980,

respectively, and that these proceeds were includable in

petitioner's gross income for those years.     Petitioner's 1979 and

1980 tax returns reported that his 1979 and 1980 gross income was

$2,370 and $7,800, respectively.

                             Discussion

     Rule 121(a) provides that either party may move for summary

judgment upon any or all parts of the legal issues in

controversy.   When either party makes such a motion, the opposing
                                - 4 -

party must file "An opposing written response, with or without

supporting affidavits, * * * within such period as the Court may

direct."   Rule 121(b).   A decision on the merits of a party's

claim will be rendered by way of summary judgment "if the

pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions, admissions,

and any other acceptable materials, together with the affidavits,

if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material

fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law."

Id.   The moving party must prove that there is no genuine issue

of material fact, and factual inferences are viewed in the light

most favorable to the nonmoving party.    United States v. Diebold,

Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962); Preece v. Commissioner, 95 T.C.

594, 597 (1990).

      The instant case is ripe for summary judgment.   It is well

established that petitioner's conviction of criminal tax evasion

for 1979 and 1980 under section 7201 collaterally estops him from

denying that deficiencies in his income taxes for those years

were due to fraud for purposes of section 6653(b).     The elements

of criminal tax evasion under section 7201 are not dissimilar to

the elements of civil tax fraud under section 6653(b), and a

guilty plea is equivalent to a conviction after trial for the

purpose of collateral estoppel.    See, e.g., Johnson v. Sawyer,

47 F.3d 716, 722 (5th Cir. 1995); Gray v. Commissioner, 708 F.2d

243 (6th Cir. 1983), affg. T.C. Memo. 1981-1; Tomlinson v.

Lefkowitz, 334 F.2d 262, 264-265 (5th Cir. 1964); Castillo v.
                                 - 5 -

Commissioner, 84 T.C. 405, 409-410 (1985); Brooks v.

Commissioner, 82 T.C. 413, 431 (1984), affd. without published

opinion 772 F.2d 910 (9th Cir. 1985); Amos v. Commissioner,

43 T.C. 50 (1964), affd. 360 F.2d 358 (4th Cir. 1965).

     Respondent's motion for partial summary judgment will be

granted.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                              An appropriate order

                                         will be issued.
