JEROSE v. COMMISSIONER

2005 T.C. Summary Opinion 132, 2005 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 89
United States Tax Court·Decided September 6, 2005·No. No. 13606-03S·Unpublished

Opinion

JOHN M. AND NANCY L. JEROSE, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
JEROSE v. COMMISSIONER
No. 13606-03S
United States Tax Court
T.C. Summary Opinion 2005-132; 2005 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 89;
September 6, 2005, Filed

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

John M. and Nancy L. Jerose, Pro sese.
Steven M. Webster, for respondent.
Goldberg, Stanley J.

STANLEY J. GOLDBERG

GOLDBERG, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect at the time the petition was filed. The decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion should not be cited as authority. Unless otherwise indicated, subsequent section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue.

Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioners' Federal income tax of $ 1,425 for the taxable year 2000.

The issue for decision is whether disability benefits received by petitioner, Nancy L. Jerose, in 2000 from the Fortis Benefits Insurance Co. are excludable from petitioners' gross income pursuant to section 105(c). For reasons set forth herein, we hold they are not.

Background

Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated*90 herein by this reference. Petitioners resided in Horse Shoe, North Carolina, on the date the petition was filed in this case.

During the period from 1991 through September 2000, Nancy L. Jerose (petitioner) was employed as a certified nursing assistant by Henderson County Hospital Corp. doing business as Margaret R. Parsee Memorial Hospital (Memorial Hospital). Memorial Hospital contracted through the Fortis Benefits Insurance Co. (Fortis Co.) for a group long-term disability insurance program (the Fortis policy) for the benefit of its employees. The Fortis policy states, in pertinent part:

Schedule Amount

Core Plan: The Schedule Amount is 60 percent of monthly pay subject to a Maximum Schedule Amount of $ 6,000 per month.

Alternate Plan: The Schedule Amount is 60 percent of monthly pay subject to a Maximum Schedule of $ 6,000 per month.

Insurance Provided

If you [a covered person] become disabled while insured under the long term disability insurance, we will pay benefits if you satisfy the qualifying period. We will continue to pay benefits during your disability, but not beyond the Maximum Benefit Period. Any benefits are subject to the provisions*91 of the policy.

Maximum Benefit Period

We will not pay benefits under the Core Plan beyond the maximums stated below, based on your age on the day the period of disability started.

AGEMAXIMUM BENEFIT PERIOD
Before 6536 months of disability, following the
end of the qualifying period
65 but before 6824 months of disability, following the
end of the qualifying period
68 but before 7018 months of disability, following the
end of the qualifying period
70 but before 7215 months of disability, following the
end of the qualifying period
72 or more12 months of disability, following the
end of the qualifying period

We will not pay benefits under the Alternate Plan beyond the maximums stated below, based on your age on the day the period of disability started.

AGEMAXIMUM BENEFIT PERIOD
Before 65the day before Social Security Normal
Retirement Date or 36 months of
disability, following the end of the
qualifying period, whichever is longer
65 but before 6824 months of disability, following the
end of the qualifying period
68 but before 7018 months of disability, following the
end of the qualifying period
70 but before 7215 months of disability, following the

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

JEROSE v. COMMISSIONER, 2005 T.C. Summary Opinion 132, 2005 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 89 (tax 2005).

2005 T.C. Summary Opinion 132 (JEROSE v. COMMISSIONER) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co.
348 U.S. 426 (Supreme Court, 1955)
F. L. McClanahan v. United States
292 F.2d 630 (Fifth Circuit, 1961)
Kees v. Commissioner
1999 T.C. Memo. 41 (U.S. Tax Court, 1999)
HIGBEE v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
116 T.C. No. 28 (U.S. Tax Court, 2001)
Hines v. Commissioner
72 T.C. 715 (U.S. Tax Court, 1979)