Virgilio Dela Cruz and Milagros Dela Cruz - Page 3




                                        - 2 -                                         
          effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the            
          Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.                                  
               Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioners’ Federal             
          income tax of $2,968 for the taxable year 1997.                             
               The issues for decision are:  (1) Whether certain Social               
          Security disability benefits are includable in petitioners’ gross           
          income; and (2) whether petitioners are entitled to a deduction             
          for attorney’s fees incurred in obtaining the Social Security               
          benefits.1                                                                  
               Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.               
          The stipulations of fact and the attached exhibits are                      
          incorporated herein by this reference.  Petitioners resided in              
          Daly City, California, on the date the petition was filed in this           
          case.                                                                       
               During 1997, petitioner wife (Ms. Dela Cruz) received a                
          lump-sum payment of $11,316 for Social Security disability                  
          benefits attributable to 1995 and 1996.  Ms. Dela Cruz personally           
          received $8,487 of this amount, and the remaining $2,829 was                
          given to her lawyer.  In addition, Ms. Dela Cruz’s daughter,                


          1Respondent has made two concessions.  First, respondent has                
          accepted an amended return filed by petitioners but not reflected           
          in the notice of deficiency.  The amended return reflects taxable           
          income of $42,503, while the notice’s adjustments were made to              
          taxable income of $43,289.  Respondent concedes the difference.             
          Second, respondent concedes a mathematical error in the notice:             
          The “total increase” in income in the notice should read $9,850             
          rather than $9,856.                                                         





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011