Royal v. Comm'r

2006 T.C. Memo. 72, 91 T.C.M. 1004, 2006 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 70
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedApril 11, 2006
DocketNo. 19001-04
StatusUnpublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 2006 T.C. Memo. 72 (Royal 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
Royal v. Comm'r, 2006 T.C. Memo. 72, 91 T.C.M. 1004, 2006 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 70 (tax 2006).

Opinion

STEPHEN DARYL ROYAL, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Royal v. Comm'r
No. 19001-04
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 2006-72; 2006 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 70; 91 T.C.M. (CCH) 1004; RIA TM 56478;
April 11, 2006, Filed
*70 Stephen Daryl Royal, pro se.
Bradley C. Plovan, for respondent.
Chiechi, Carolyn P.

Carolyn P. Chiechi

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CHIECHI, Judge: Respondent determined a $ 5,324 deficiency in, and a $ 1,065 accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a)1 on, petitioner's Federal income tax (tax) for his taxable year 2002. The issues remaining for decision are: 2

(1) Is petitioner required to include $ 25,940.49 in his gross income for his taxable year 2002? We hold that he is.

(2) Is petitioner entitled for his taxable year 2002 to the earned income tax credit? We hold that he is not.

Background

Virtually all of the facts have been stipulated by the parties and are so found.

At the time petitioner filed the petition*71 in this case, his legal residence was in Baltimore City, Maryland.

During 2002, petitioner was an employee of the U.S. Postal Service (Postal Service) until he retired in that year because of disability.

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) approved petitioner's retirement from the Postal Service because of disability. In a letter dated July 29, 2002, OPM advised petitioner as follows:

Your application for disability retirement has been approved.

According to information we have received from your agency, you have not been separated from Government service. Therefore, we are notifying your agency of the approval and asking them to separate you. We are asking them to give us your last day of pay. Payment of annuity cannot start until after your last day of pay. If you have sick leave remaining, the last day of pay will be the day your sick leave is exhausted. We are asking your agency to send us your final separation records so we can establish your final annuity rate.

We cannot start your annuity payments until we receive confirmation that you have applied for Social Security disability benefits. If you have not already done so, you must now apply for them. *72 Please send us a copy of the receipt (or notice of allowance or disallowance) which you receive from the Social Security Administration after you file the application.

If the Social Security Administration awards you monthly benefits, you must also notify OPM of the amount of the monthly Social Security benefit and effective date of payment immediately upon becoming eligible * * *.

During petitioner's employment with the Postal Service, he made contributions to a retirement account (petitioner's TSP retirement account) that he maintained with the Federal Thrift Savings Plan. 3*73 At a time or times not disclosed by the record, petitioner borrowed money from petitioner's TSP retirement account. When petitioner retired from the Postal Service in 2002, he had the following two loans from that account outstanding (collectively, petitioner's loans): Loan number 0130267-E in the amount of $ 10,477.89 (petitioner's $ 10,477.89 loan) and loan number 9800963-R in the amount of $ 15,462.60 (petitioner's $ 15,462.60 loan). 4

Petitioner was sent a notice dated September 4, 2002, with respect to each of petitioner's loans. Such notice informed petitioner that he was required to repay in full by December 3, 2002, the loan to which such notice pertained and that if he did not do so, a taxable distribution would be declared with respect to the unpaid principal and unpaid interest to September 16, 2002, with respect to such loan. Petitioner did not repay petitioner's loans.

On September 23, 2002, the Federal Thrift Savings Plan sent petitioner two letters (collectively, September 23, 2002 letters), one of which pertained to petitioner's $ 10,477.89 loan (September 23, 2002 letter pertaining to petitioner's $ 10,477.89 loan) and the other of which pertained to petitioner's $ 15,462.60 loan (September 23, 2002 letter pertaining to petitioner's $ 15,462.60 loan). The September 23, 2002 letter pertaining to petitioner's $ 10,477.89 loan stated in pertinent part:

You were sent a notice dated 09/04/02, informing you that, because you separated*74 after your Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) loan was issued, you must repay your loan in full by 12/03/02, or a taxable distribution would be declared. Because you forfeited your right to repay the loan in full, effective 09/16/02, a taxable distribution in the amount of $ 10,477.89 has been declared in connection with the unpaid principal and unpaid interest to 09/16/02, on * * * [petitioner's $ 10,477.89] loan.

The September 23, 2002 letter pertaining to petitioner's $ 15,462.60 loan stated in pertinent part:

You were sent a notice dated 09/04/02, informing you

that, because you separated after your Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) loan was issued, you must repay your loan in full by 12/03/02, or a taxable distribution would be declared. Because you forfeited your right to repay the loan in full, effective 09/16/02, a taxable distribution in the amount of $ 15,462.60 has been declared in connection with the unpaid principal and unpaid interest to 09/16/02, on * * * [petitioner's $ 15,462.60] loan.

Both September 23, 2002 letters further advised petitioner:

This amount [of taxable distribution declared] will be reported as taxable income for 2002. You may also be*75

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

Related

Matthews v. Comm'r
2014 T.C. Summary Opinion 84 (U.S. Tax Court, 2014)
David C. Matthews & Marcia K. Matthews v. Commissioner
2014 T.C. Summary Opinion 84 (U.S. Tax Court, 2014)
Ryan v. Comm'r
2011 T.C. Memo. 139 (U.S. Tax Court, 2011)
Jordan v. Commissioner
2006 T.C. Memo. 95 (U.S. Tax Court, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2006 T.C. Memo. 72, 91 T.C.M. 1004, 2006 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 70, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/royal-v-commr-tax-2006.