Final answer:
Tax avoidance can lead to criminal and civil prosecution especially if it crosses into illegal activity. Civil and criminal cases are seen as separate legal matters with different burdens of proof and purposes, allowing for such dual proceedings without violating double jeopardy. The dual system addresses different harms and functions under separate jurisdictions.
Step-by-step explanation:
Tax avoidance may indeed lead to both criminal and civil prosecution, although it is worth noting that tax avoidance is often distinguished from tax evasion. The former is typically seen as the legal utilization of the tax regime to one's own advantage, to reduce the amount of tax that is payable by means that are within the law. However, when tax avoidance crosses over into illegal activities, it can attract criminal charges.
Civil law cases typically involve the pursuit of compensation for wrongs done, through means like fines or other remedies. Criminal prosecution, on the other hand, involves the government charging an individual with a crime that comes with potential penalties such as imprisonment. In some cases, actions can be subject to both forms of prosecution without violating the principle of double jeopardy, as they are considered separate matters in the eyes of the law. This occurs because a criminal conviction requires guilt 'beyond a reasonable doubt', whereas a civil case requires a 'preponderance of the evidence' which is a lower burden of proof. Furthermore, the criminal and civil cases typically address different harms: criminal for punishment for the wrong against society, and civil for redress to the victim.
Arguments for allowing both criminal and civil cases often center on this notion of addressing different types of harm, while arguments against might point to a perception of fairness and concerns about being punished twice for the same act. Additionally, when a person can be tried at both federal and state levels due to jurisdiction differences, it brings complexity to these debates.