Mercedes Arcia - Page 12

                                        - 12 -                                         

          amazing "story" that unfolded at trial.  We believe that $106,000            
          of the total $201,034 found in petitioner's cooler indeed belonged           
          to Mr. Macias.  By storing the money with petitioner, Mr. Macias             
          followed a pattern:  First he stored the money with Mr. Morera,              
          then with Mr. Chavez, and finally with petitioner.  Consequently,            
          petitioner acted as a conduit or agent for Mr. Macias.                       
               We agree with respondent that a taxpayer's forfeiture of                
          seized currency does not prevent it from being included in his               
          gross income.  See, e.g., Gambina v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 826               
          (1988).  However, we disagree with respondent's contention that in           
          this case substantive evidence exists proving that the $106,000              
          seized and forfeited was linked to petitioner's drug-related                 
          activities.  During cross-examination, petitioner asserted his               
          Fifth Amendment rights and refused to answer questions posed to him          
          by respondent's counsel concerning petitioner's possible                     
          involvement in selling drugs.  Although we are mindful that an               
          individual's failure to answer questions may give rise to an                 
          inference that if he had answered, the answers would have harmed             
          him, Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 316-319 (1976), we do not           
          believe this inference directly links the $106,000 at issue to an            
          illegal activity involving petitioner.                                       
               Additionally, we disagree with respondent's argument that               
          because petitioner was a claimant in the State and Federal actions,          
          the $106,000 at issue must have belonged to him.  "A claimant need           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011