VOGT v. COMMISSIONER

2005 T.C. Summary Opinion 107, 2005 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 172
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedJuly 27, 2005
DocketNo. 2431-04S
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2005 T.C. Summary Opinion 107 (VOGT v. COMMISSIONER) 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
VOGT v. COMMISSIONER, 2005 T.C. Summary Opinion 107, 2005 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 172 (tax 2005).

Opinion

KEITH R. AND CHRISTINE M. VOGT, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
VOGT v. COMMISSIONER
No. 2431-04S
United States Tax Court
T.C. Summary Opinion 2005-107; 2005 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 172;
July 27, 2005, Filed

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

Keith R. and Christine M. Vogt, Pro se.
John W. Strate, for respondent.
Couvillion, D. Irvin.

D. IRVIN COUVILLION

COUVILLION, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuant to section 7463 in effect when the petition was filed. 1 The decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion should not be cited as authority.

Respondent determined a deficiency of $ 1,973 in petitioners' Federal income tax for the year 2001. The issues for decision are: (1) Whether assistance payments paid to petitioners by the State of California, Department of Social Services, In-Home Supportive Services program (IHSS), to care for petitioners' disabled son constitute*173 gross income under section 61, and (2) whether petitioners are entitled to the earned income credit under section 32.

Some of the facts were stipulated. Those facts, with the exhibits annexed thereto, are so found and made part hereof. Petitioners' legal residence at the time the petition was filed was Fresno, California.

Petitioners have a mentally disabled 17-year old son, referred to herein as "NV". NV has suffered from encephalopathy, an inflammation of the brain marked by varying degrees of impairment of speech, cognition, orientation, and arousal, since at least 1988. In addition, he suffers from Ashburger's disorder, a form of autism, and obsessive compulsive disorder. NV's disorders often result in violent behavior; consequently, he is generally heavily medicated. As a result, NV requires constant assistance and supervision throughout the day. In or before 1991, petitioner Keith Vogt (Mr. Vogt) left his job and became the sole caregiver for NV while petitioner Christine Vogt (Mrs. Vogt) continued her employment in the legal department of a local hospital.

In 1991, IHSS determined that NV was entitled to receive State assistance to pay for required nonmedical care. Mr. Vogt*174 provided that care and, in accordance with the requirements of the State agency, submitted bimonthly time sheets to IHSS certifying the number of hours he furnished services to his son. Mr. Vogt noted on all bimonthly time sheets submitted to IHSS the number of hours he actually worked exceeded the number of hours he was authorized to work. Bimonthly checks were issued by IHSS to petitioner after the submission of his time sheets. Petitioner received $ 14,982.22 during 2001 from IHSS for such services provided to his son.

When Mr. Vogt first began receiving checks from IHSS, he noticed there were no income taxes withheld. He contacted the State of California and was directed to a State auditor who assured Mr. Vogt that the payments to him did not constitute gross income. Mr. Vogt also questioned an IHSS social worker who visited the home periodically and was also assured that payments to families for care provided by parents to a minor child in the home did not constitute gross income. Petitioners relied on this advice even though the payments listed Mr. Vogt as an employee and his son, NV, as his employer. In addition, the IRS examined petitioners' 1991 Federal income tax return*175 as to whether the IHSS payments were income but, after conferring with petitioners, concluded that the IHSS payments were not considered gross income.

In this case, respondent cites Bannon v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 59 (1992), as controlling. In Bannon, which involved circumstances very similar to those in the present case, in which a taxpayer gave her child round-the-clock total daily care, in excess of the hours listed on the taxpayer's biweekly timecard and paid for by the IHSS, the Court analyzed the law in detail and stated, id. at 66:

Petitioner's situation is sympathetic. She is to be lauded for the beneficence and compassion she has shown to her disabled daughter. But we cannot grant petitioner the relief she seeks. * * * We hold that petitioner's receipt of payments under California's in-home supportive services program did not constitute a welfare benefit to her and is therefore includable in her income for Federal income tax purposes.

Although the Court has only previously addressed the classification of IHSS payments as they apply to adult children, California law makes no distinction between adult children and minor children for purposes*176 of IHSS payments. See Miller v. Woods, 148 Cal. App. 3d 862 (1983). Live-in relatives, whether caring for minor or adult children, receive the same level of compensation from IHSS as nonrelated contract workers. Id. at 877.

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

Related

Helvering v. O'DONNELL
303 U.S. 370 (Supreme Court, 1938)
Automobile Club of Mich. v. Commissioner
353 U.S. 180 (Supreme Court, 1957)
Miller v. Woods
148 Cal. App. 3d 862 (California Court of Appeal, 1983)
Zimmerman v. Commissioner
71 T.C. 367 (U.S. Tax Court, 1978)
Bannon v. Commissioner
99 T.C. No. 3 (U.S. Tax Court, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2005 T.C. Summary Opinion 107, 2005 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vogt-v-commissioner-tax-2005.