- 8 -
cited by petitioner in the Federal income tax arena and found
that these cases did not apply for purposes of the Double
Jeopardy Clause or the Excessive Fines Clause. United States v.
Alt, supra; Thomas v. Commissioner, 62 F.3d 97 (4th Cir. 1995),
affg. T.C. Memo. 1994-128; McNichols v. Commissioner, supra; see
United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 2135 (1996)
(which considered the cases petitioner cites in the context of a
civil forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. sec. 981, the same statute under
which petitioner forfeited his funds, and held that such civil
forfeiture was not punishment for purposes of the Double Jeopardy
Clause); see also Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. (Dec. 10,
1997) (which provides a further analysis of the cases which
petitioner cites).
We hold that the denial of the loss deduction while imposing
a liability for Federal income tax on the forfeited money does
not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause or the Excessive Fines
Clause.
Section 72(t) Tax
Section 72(t)(1) provides:
If any taxpayer receives any amount from a qualified
retirement plan (as defined in section 4974(c)), the
taxpayer's tax under this chapter for the taxable year
in which such amount is received shall be increased by
an amount equal to 10 percent of the portion of such
amount which is includible in gross income.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011