- 6 -
traceable to such property" is subject to forfeiture to the
United States. 18 U.S.C. sec. 981(a)(1)(A). The title 31
sections establish the Federal Government's policy against
structuring. See Stephens v. Commissioner, 905 F.2d at 670. To
allow petitioner a deduction for losses arising out of illegal
activities would undermine public policy by permitting a portion
of the forfeiture to be borne by the Government, thus taking the
"sting" out of the forfeiture. See Tank Truck Rentals, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 356 U.S. 30, 35 (1958); Wood v. United States,
supra at 422; Holt v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 75, 81 (1977), affd.
611 F.2d 1160 (5th Cir. 1980); Farris v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1985-346, affd. without published opinion 823 F.2d 1552 (9th Cir.
1987). Petitioner seeks to draw a line between his situation and
the cases denying deductions for forfeitures on the ground that
such cases involved drug dealers whose activities involve much
more serious violations of law than his structuring of bank
deposits. We think this distinction is without merit. The
Congress, by its enactment of the antistructuring statutory
provisions, established a declared public policy. Taking into
account the "presumption against congressional intent to
encourage violation of declared public policy", Tank Truck
Rentals, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 35, and that the
antistructuring provisions constituted subtitle H of the Anti-
Drug Abuse Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-570, 100 Stat. 3207, 3207-22,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011