Carrancho v. Comm'r
Opinion
PURSUANT TO
Decision will be entered for respondent.
PANUTHOS,
In a notice of deficiency dated August 19, 2013, respondent determined a deficiency in petitioners' 2011 Federal income tax of $4,811. Respondent determined that petitioners failed to report as income $32,827 in Social Security benefits received in 2011.
The issue for decision is whether petitioners are required to include certain Social Security benefits in their gross income.
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by reference. Petitioners resided in California when their*30 petition was filed.
Tony Carrancho (petitioner) became disabled on June 20, 2003. On September 2, 2009, petitioner filed for monthly disability benefits with the Social Security Administration. In September 2011, the Social Security Administration determined that petitioner became disabled on June 20, 2003, and that he was entitled to Social Security benefits beginning in September 2008. Petitioner's Social Security benefits were reduced by, or offset by, his workers' compensation payments.1*31 Petitioner received $1,790.50 in 2011 representing the net Social Security benefit allocable from December 2008 through August 2011. The Internal Revenue Service received a Form SSA-1099, Social Security Benefit Statement, reporting that petitioner received $54,489 in Social Security benefits during the 2011 taxable year. The Form SSA-1099 reflects a workers' compensation offset of $51,948. Most of the $54,489 was a lump-sum payment of Social Security benefits attributable to prior years. Petitioners reported a payment of $1,791 on their Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for 2011 as Social Security benefits received and reported $1,522 as the taxable amount.
Respondent determined that the taxable amount of Social Security benefits received was $34,349. The $32,827 adjustment is the difference between the taxable amount that respondent calculated and the $1,522 petitioners reported as taxable on their return.
In general, the Commissioner's determination set forth in a notice of deficiency is presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving otherwise. Rule 142(a);
Workers' compensation is generally excludable from a taxpayer's gross income. Sec. 104(a)(1). In contrast, Social Security benefits, including Social Security disability benefits, may be includable*32 in a taxpayer's gross income pursuant to a statutory formula that takes into account a number of factors, including the amount of Social Security benefits received, the taxpayer's other income, and the taxpayer's filing status. Sec. 86. If the amount of Social Security benefits that a taxpayer receives is reduced because of the receipt of workers' compensation benefits, then the amount of the workers' compensation benefits that causes the reduction is treated as though it were a Social Security benefit. Sec. 86(d)(3);
Taxpayers may make an election with respect to the amount of a lump-sum payment of Social Security benefits received during a taxable year in which the portion of the payment is attributable to previous years. Sec. 86(e);
When petitioner applied for Social Security benefits, part of his workers' compensation benefits, which were otherwise excludable from gross income, were treated as Social Security benefits pursuant to the provisions of section 86(d)(3). This recharacterization caused petitioners' tax to increase by more than the amount of increase in benefits received as a result of petitioner's qualifying for Social Security benefits.
While the result appears harsh, our role is to enforce the laws as written and interpreted. As the Supreme Court of the United States has instructed, the role of the courts is to apply the statute as written.
We have considered the parties' arguments and, to the extent not*34 discussed herein, we conclude the arguments to be irrelevant, moot, or without merit.
To reflect the foregoing,
Footnotes
1. The record does not reflect the amount of workers' compensation payments that petitioner received during the period 2003-11.
2. Respondent provided a computation showing that petitioners would not benefit from a sec. 86(e) election. Petitioners did not provide any such computation. We presume that petitioners would not benefit from a sec. 86(e) election.↩
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.