## Facts

- Elio and Mercedes Arcia, spouses residing in Florida, filed a joint federal income tax return for 1991.
- A friend, Eduardo Macias, had large amounts of cash and sought to keep it hidden from his ex-wife; he previously stored cash by burying it and later moved it among friends for safekeeping.
- In 1991, Macias transferred cash to multiple friends to hold temporarily, eventually leaving a portion with Elio Arcia to store.
- The cash was kept in a cooler in the Arcias’ garage, along with some of Elio Arcia’s own funds.
- In 1991, law enforcement searched the Arcia residence and seized approximately $200,000 in cash from the cooler.
- Elio Arcia told officers that part of the seized money belonged to a friend; Macias provided statements and an affidavit asserting that he had entrusted money to Arcia for safekeeping.
- The Commissioner determined that the Arcias had $106,000 of unreported income for 1991, plus an addition to tax for late filing under I.R.C. § 6651(a)(1) and an accuracy-related penalty under I.R.C. § 6662(a).

## Issues

1. Whether the Arcias had $106,000 of unreported income in 1991 attributable to the seized cash.
2. If an understatement existed, whether Mercedes Arcia qualified for innocent-spouse relief under I.R.C. § 6013(e).
3. Whether the Arcias were liable for the I.R.C. § 6651(a)(1) addition to tax for failure to timely file.
4. Whether the Arcias were liable for the I.R.C. § 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty for the underpayment ultimately determined.

## Decision

- The court held that the Commissioner’s $106,000 unreported-income determination overstated the Arcias’ income because a substantial portion of the seized cash was held for Macias and was not includible in the Arcias’ gross income.
- The court denied Mercedes Arcia innocent-spouse relief under § 6013(e).
- The court sustained the § 6651(a)(1) addition to tax for late filing (subject to recomputation based on the revised deficiency).
- The court sustained the § 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty as to the remaining underpayment after the income adjustment.
- The parties were directed to compute the final deficiency and penalties under Tax Court Rule 155.

## Legal Principles

- Gross income includes realized accessions to wealth over which the taxpayer has dominion; amounts merely held as custodian/bailee for another are not income to the holder.
- In a deficiency case, the court may adjust the Commissioner’s income determination when credible testimony and corroborating evidence show that funds attributed to the taxpayer belonged to a third party.
- Innocent-spouse relief under § 6013(e) requires the requesting spouse to prove, among other elements, lack of actual or constructive knowledge of the understatement and that it would be inequitable to impose liability.
- The § 6651(a)(1) late-filing addition applies unless the taxpayer proves the failure to file timely was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect.
- The § 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty applies to underpayments due to negligence/disregard of rules or substantial understatement, unless the taxpayer shows reasonable cause and good faith (I.R.C. § 6664(c)).

## Conclusion

The Tax Court found that only part of the seized cash supported an unreported-income adjustment because substantial amounts were held for a friend, but it denied Mercedes Arcia relief from joint liability and upheld both the late-filing addition and the accuracy-related penalty to the extent of the recomputed deficiency.


Arcia v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-178 (1998)