John M. and Norma A. Mikalonis - Page 4




                                                - 4 -                                                  
            corresponding increase in petitioners’ adjusted gross income.3                             
                  Petitioners contend that the Social Security benefits                                
            reported on the Forms SSA-1099 as “worker’s compensation offset”                           
            should not be included as part of petitioner’s Social Security                             
            benefits.  They argue that there was no “offset” but merely a                              
            “nonpayment” because neither petitioner nor the insurance company                          
            that paid the worker’s compensation benefit to petitioner                                  
            received payments of the amounts reported from the Social                                  
            Security Administration.                                                                   
                                             Discussion                                                
                  Gross income includes “all income from whatever source                               
            derived”, unless specifically excluded.  Sec. 61(a).  Generally,                           
            gross income does not include “amounts received under workmen’s                            
            compensation acts as compensation for personal injuries or                                 
            sickness.”  Sec. 104(a)(1).  Social Security benefits, however,                            
            are included in gross income as provided by section 86.                                    
                  Married taxpayers filing a joint return whose modified                               
            adjusted gross income plus one-half of their Social Security                               

                  3  The increase in petitioners’ adjusted gross income in                             
            1996 resulted in a computational adjustment to petitioners’                                
            itemized deductions.  Petitioners appear to dispute this                                   
            adjustment, alleging in their petition that respondent erred in                            
            disallowing certain expenses and deductions.  Petitioners,                                 
            however, have presented no evidence or argument regarding this                             
            issue, and we thus deem them to have conceded it.  See Rybak v.                            
            Commissioner, supra; Zimmerman v. Commissioner, supra.  Our                                
            determination of the Social Security issue will resolve the                                
            computational adjustment.                                                                  






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011