Drain v. Comm'r

U.S. Tax Court

Drain v. Comm'r

2011 T.C. Summary Opinion 59, 2011 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 56

CourtUnited States Tax Court

DecidedMay 12, 2011

DocketDocket No. 5405-10S.

StatusUnpublished

This text of 2011 T.C. Summary Opinion 59 (Drain v. Comm'r) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Drain v. Comm'r, 2011 T.C. Summary Opinion 59, 2011 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 56 (tax 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

GARY T. PAYNE AND CARLINE T. DRAIN, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Drain v. Comm'r

Docket No. 5405-10S.

United States Tax Court

T.C. Summary Opinion 2011-59; 2011 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 56;

May 12, 2011, Filed

PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b), THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE.

*56

Decision will be entered for respondent.

Gary T. Payne and Carline T. Drain, Pro se.

Rachael J. Zepeda, for respondent.

GERBER, Judge.

GERBER

GERBER, Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect when the petition was filed.¹ Pursuant to section 7463(b), the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case. Respondent determined a $1,643 deficiency in petitioners' 2007 Federal income tax. After concessions the sole issue for consideration is whether petitioners may exclude from income Social Security disability benefits (SSD benefits).

Background²

Petitioners resided in Arizona when they timely filed their petition. In 2007 Ms. Drain received $14,526 in SSD benefits.

Discussion

Petitioners have adamantly contended that SSD benefits are not taxable. In part, their argument is based on their belief that the benefits have already been taxed and *57 to tax them again would be double taxation. Their belief is based on the fact that the Government collects their payments into the Social Security system along with and in the same manner as the income tax and/or that they made the payments with after-tax dollars. We understand how petitioners feel; unfortunately, however, their argument is unavailing, as explained in Roberts v. Commissioner,T.C. Memo. 1998-172, affd. without published opinion 182 F.3d 927 (9th Cir. 1999).

Petitioners' second argument is that SSD benefits are excludable under section 104. It is well established that SSD benefits are includable in income under section 86 and are not excludable as workmen's compensation benefits under section 104(a)(1), Green v. Commissioner,T.C. Memo. 2006-39, affd. 262 Fed. Appx. 790 (9th Cir. 2007), or accident/health insurance benefits under section 104(a)(3), Seaver v. Commissioner,T.C. Memo. 2009-270.

To reflect the foregoing,

Footnotes

1. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue.↩
2. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference.↩

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

GARY T. PAYNE AND CARLINE T. DRAIN, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Drain v. Comm'r

Docket No. 5405-10S.

United States Tax Court

T.C. Summary Opinion 2011-59; 2011 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 56;

May 12, 2011, Filed

PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b), THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE.

*56

Decision will be entered for respondent.

Gary T. Payne and Carline T. Drain, Pro se.

Rachael J. Zepeda, for respondent.

GERBER, Judge.

GERBER

GERBER, Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect when the petition was filed.¹ Pursuant to section 7463(b), the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case. Respondent determined a $1,643 deficiency in petitioners' 2007 Federal income tax. After concessions the sole issue for consideration is whether petitioners may exclude from income Social Security disability benefits (SSD benefits).

Background²

Petitioners resided in Arizona when they timely filed their petition. In 2007 Ms. Drain received $14,526 in SSD benefits.

Discussion

Petitioners have adamantly contended that SSD benefits are not taxable. In part, their argument is based on their belief that the benefits have already been taxed and *57 to tax them again would be double taxation. Their belief is based on the fact that the Government collects their payments into the Social Security system along with and in the same manner as the income tax and/or that they made the payments with after-tax dollars. We understand how petitioners feel; unfortunately, however, their argument is unavailing, as explained in Roberts v. Commissioner,T.C. Memo. 1998-172, affd. without published opinion 182 F.3d 927 (9th Cir. 1999).

Petitioners' second argument is that SSD benefits are excludable under section 104. It is well established that SSD benefits are includable in income under section 86 and are not excludable as workmen's compensation benefits under section 104(a)(1), Green v. Commissioner,T.C. Memo. 2006-39, affd. 262 Fed. Appx. 790 (9th Cir. 2007), or accident/health insurance benefits under section 104(a)(3), Seaver v. Commissioner,T.C. Memo. 2009-270.

To reflect the foregoing,

Footnotes

1. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue.↩
2. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference.↩

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2011 T.C. Summary Opinion 59, 2011 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drain-v-commr-tax-2011.

Opinion

Footnotes

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack