- 11 -
the welfare payments. The Court found that taxpayer’s daughter
employed taxpayer to provide services, that payments were
disbursed in the name of the disabled daughter during the first
half of the year under an advance payment method, whereas,
payments were directly disbursed to petitioner-health care
provider and the other provider, during the last half of the
year. At all times during the year in issue, the agency
disbursing the funds considered the disabled daughter as the
recipient of the benefits and the employer of the care providers.
Therefore, the payments were includable in the taxpayer’s gross
income as compensation. See id. at 66.
Moreover, petitioner’s case is almost identical to the facts
in Goldman v. United States, 79 F. Supp. 2d 1356 (N.D. Ga. 1998),
affd. per curiam without published opinion 196 F.3d 1262 (11th
Cir. 1999). In Goldman, Mrs. Goldman received reimbursement
under a similar Florida statute for providing attendant care to
her fully disabled husband. Mrs. Goldman did not include amounts
received for services on their joint return because she argued
the payments were fully excludable under section 104(a)(1). In a
refund action, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia, applying Florida law, found that an award of
attendant-care services for care given by taxpayer was properly
included in gross income as compensation for services under the
doctrine of anticipatory assignment. The Court held that the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011