1988 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 134">*134 Decision will be entered for the respondent.
Cash in the possession of petitioners was forfeited pursuant to sec. 302 of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984,
91 T.C. 826">*827 OPINION
Respondent determined a deficiency of $ 71,460.40 in petitioner's Federal income tax for 1984, an addition to tax of $ 7,146.04 under
1988 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 134">*135 This case was submitted fully stipulated. The facts as set forth in the stipulation of facts and the accompanying exhibits are found accordingly.
Petitioner resided in Middle Village, New York, at the time the petition herein was filed.
On November 14, 1984, pursuant to an arrest and search warrant founded on a complaint that petitioner conspired with other defendants to distribute, and possess with intent to distribute, cocaine in violation of
1988 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 134">*136 Petitioner does not contest respondent's determinations, including the additions to tax, except with respect to the inclusion of the $ 143,912 cash in gross income. 3
1988 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 134">*137 91 T.C. 826">*828 Petitioner's sole contention is that by virtue of
Based upon the statute, petitioner argues that the cash never came into his possession, custody, or control and that therefore
Initially, we note that there is nothing in the legislative history of
1988 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 134">*139 In sum, despite the fact that petitioner will be subjected to both forfeiture and taxation (see
1988 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 134">*140 Decision will be entered for the respondent.
Footnotes
1. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as amended and in effect for the year at issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2. Petitioner's opening brief reveals that petitioner was subsequently indicted and pled guilty to various narcotics violations and forfeited all of the cash.↩
3. Nor does petitioner argue that respondent has the burden of coming forward with evidence connecting petitioner with an income-producing activity -- an argument we would have rejected. See
Schad v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 609">87 T.C. 609 (1986), affd. without published opinion827 F.2d 774">827 F.2d 774 (11th Cir. 1987);Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74">87 T.C. 74 (1986);Shriver v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 1">85 T.C. 1 (1985), affd. without opinion (7th Cir. 1986). We also note that respondent was entitled to include an amount in petitioner's gross income representing cost of living.Burgo v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 729">69 T.C. 729 , 69 T.C. 729">749 (1978). Similarly, petitioner would not be entitled to a loss deduction for the forfeiture of the cash.Holt v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 75">69 T.C. 75 , 69 T.C. 75">78-79 (1977), affd. per curiam611 F.2d 1160">611 F.2d 1160 (5th Cir. 1980);Gillan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-321↩ .4. See also
Gillan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-321↩ .5. That subsection provides: "All right, title, and interest in property described in subsection (a) of this section shall vest in the United States upon commission of the act giving rise to forfeiture under this section."
21 U.S.C. sec. 881(h) (Supp. III 1986)↩ .6. Petitioner has not raised any constitutional questions. Such being the case, we do not reach any such questions. See
Yagoda v. Commissioner, 39 T.C. 169">39 T.C. 169 , 39 T.C. 169">184 (1962), affd. on other issues331 F.2d 485">331 F.2d 485 (2d Cir. 1963); see alsoWood v. United States, 693 F. Supp. 452">693 F. Supp. 452 (E.D. La. 1988↩).