that cumulative punishments may be meted out as long as they result from a single proceeding. See, e.g., Kurth Ranch, 511 U.S. at 778, 114 S.Ct. 1937; Torres, 28 F.3d at 1464. Moreover, it is a rare tax statute which is so punitive in either purpose or effect that it is subject to double jeopardy analysis at all. However, when we are presented with a criminal punishment masquerading as a civil tax, we are compelled by the mandates of the Constitution to ensure that the defendant is punished only once for his misconduct. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s denial of Dye’s petition for habeas relief is REVERSED. 1 . This version of the tax was found unconstitutional by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 1997. See State v. Hall, 207 Wis.2d 54, 557 N.W.2d 778 (1997) (<HOLDING>). However, the statute was operative in 1994
holding that juveniles request to call parent is assertion of fifth amendment privilege against selfincrimination holding that waiver of privilege against selfincrimination is proceeding specific recognizing commonlaw privilege against selfincrimination holding that the drug tax violated the privilege against selfincrimination holding that the constitutional privilege against selfincrimination is applicable in the case of juveniles as it is with respect to adults