- 5 -
In his petition, petitioner did not raise the issue of
losses allegedly resulting from the forfeiture of his rental
properties. He did not seek to amend his petition to raise this
issue, nor did he otherwise give proper notice before trial that
he intended to raise it. Accordingly, the issue is not before
the Court, and we will not consider it. See Frentz v.
Commissioner, 44 T.C. 485, 490-491 (1965), affd. per order 375
F.2d 662 (6th Cir. 1967).
Even if the issue were properly before us, however,
petitioner would not be entitled to the claimed losses.
Petitioner failed to introduce any credible evidence to establish
the amounts of the alleged losses or the year in which they might
have been realized. Indeed, because the forfeitures occurred
after petitioner’s guilty plea in February 1989, they would not
have given rise to any loss in 1988. See sec. 461(a); sec.
1.446-1(c)(1), Income Tax Regs. In any event, losses resulting
from drug traffickers’ asset forfeitures are disallowed as
contravening clearly defined public policy.5 See, e.g., Holt v.
5 On brief, petitioner suggests that the above-cited
principle of public policy is nongermane here because his claimed
losses did not result from a forfeiture related to drug
trafficking but rather from a “breach of contract” as a result of
a “reneged plea agreement.” Contrary to petitioner’s
contentions, the Ohio Court of Appeals has repeatedly and
consistently characterized the disposition of petitioner’s 141
rental properties as a forfeiture related to his drug trafficking
charges. See, e.g., State v. Thrower, No. 20615 (Ohio Ct. App.
Mar. 13, 2002); Thrower v. Anderson, No. 98AP-1152 (Ohio Ct. App.
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011