James Logan Clark - Page 2

                                        - 2 -                                         
               Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's Federal             
          income tax for 1995 in the amount of $1,395.                                
               The issue presented by petitioner is whether various                   
          provisions of sections 86 and 6013 are unfair and                           
               The facts have been fully stipulated.  The stipulations of             
          fact and the accompanying exhibits are incorporated herein by               
          this reference.  Petitioner resided in Bonne Terre, Missouri, at            
          the time the petition was filed in this case.                               
               Petitioner and his former wife, Shirley Clark (Ms. Clark),             
          separated in September 1995 and began living apart at that time.            
          They were divorced in March 1996.  Despite petitioner's requests,           
          Ms. Clark refused to file a joint Federal income tax return with            
          him for 1995.                                                               
               Petitioner received Social Security benefits in the amount             
          of $11,064 during 1995.  He timely filed his 1995 return,                   
          claiming the filing status of married filing separately.  On his            
          return, he reported the full amount of his Social Security                  
          benefits for 1995 on line 13a.  He did not, however, include any            
          of his Social Security benefits in gross income on line 14.                 
               In the statutory notice of deficiency, respondent determined           
          that $9,404 of petitioner's Social Security benefits must be                
          included in his gross income.  Petitioner does not contest this             
          adjustment made by respondent pursuant to the provisions of                 
          section 86.  Rather, he argues that section 86(c)(1)(C) and                 

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011