- 8 -
under section 162(a) because he was acquitted of being engaged in
the racketeering business. He turned instead to section 212(2).3
He claimed he was entitled to a deduction because he was
protecting certain certificates of deposit from forfeiture.
Under the RICO statute, assets purchased with racketeering funds
are subject to forfeiture. Id. at 446-448. The Seventh Circuit
denied the deduction on the ground that, because petitioner was
acquitted, and because the certificates of deposit were not
obtained with the proceeds of the alleged racketeering activities
in any event, there was no nexus between the certificates and the
racketeering legal expenses. Id. at 449.
The Government interprets Accardo to mean that Accardo's
fellow defendants there were entitled to deduct their legal fees
because they were involved in the racketeering business and their
property was subject to forfeiture and seizure. The Government
attempts to distinguish petitioner's case on the basis that his
property was not subject to forfeiture and seizure. In its
brief, the Government also relies on the differences in the
statutes themselves: "Unlike the racketeering statute, which
3 Sec. 212(2) provides:
In the case of an individual, there shall be allowed as a
deduction all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or
incurred during the taxable year--
* * * * * * *
(2) for the management, conservation, or maintenance of
property held for the production of income;
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011