Russell v. Commissioner
Opinion
*292 Decision will be entered for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
COUVILLION,
Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's 1992 Federal income tax in the amount of $ 279.
The sole issue for decision is whether unemployment benefits received by petitioner during the year at issue constitute "compensation" for purposes of calculating the allowable deduction for a contribution to an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) under
*293 Some of the facts have been stipulated, and those facts, with the annexed exhibits, are so found and are incorporated herein by reference. At the time the petition was filed, petitioner's legal residence was Northport, New York.
During 1992, petitioner earned $ 306.26 in taxable wages, $ 299.36 in taxable interest, $ 106 for jury duty service, and received $ 10,660 in unemployment compensation. Petitioner properly reported all of this income on his 1992 Federal income tax return (return).
Petitioner contributed $ 2,000 to an IRA in 1992 and claimed a contribution deduction for this amount on his 1992 return. In the notice of deficiency, respondent disallowed $ 1,694 of petitioner's IRA contribution deduction, the amount by which the deduction exceeded his taxable wages of $ 306.26.
In calculating the amount of the contribution deduction, petitioner considered the unemployment benefits he received in 1992 to be "compensation", as that term is used in
Deductions are a matter of legislative grace, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving his entitlement to the claimed deduction.
Unemployment compensation is defined under
The unemployment compensation benefits petitioner*295 received were paid to him by a Federal or State agency, not for any work or personal services performed by petitioner, but particularly and solely because of petitioner's lack of employment and inability to earn salary or wages due to the lack of employment opportunities.
At trial, petitioner referred the Court to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 1990 instruction booklet for Form 1040 and the following statement in that booklet on which he relied in considering his unemployment compensation*296 benefits as "compensation" for purposes of his IRA contribution: "NOTE: Supplemental unemployment benefits received from a company-financed supplemental unemployment benefit fund are wages. Report them on Line 7." The Court first notes that petitioner did not receive his unemployment benefits "from a company-financed supplemental unemployment benefit fund". Therefore, the statement from the booklet is not applicable to petitioner. However, even if the booklet had provided erroneous information, the law is well settled that authoritative tax law is contained in statutes, regulations, and judicial decisions and not in informal publications.
Footnotes
1. Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year at issue. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2. In the notice of deficiency, respondent made adjustments to petitioners medical and miscellaneous expense deductions. These adjustments are computational and will be resolved by the Court's holding on the issue in this case.↩
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.