Khen Thi and Hong Van Huynh - Page 7




                                        - 6 -                                         

          during 1996 and 1997.  Finally, as a result of the payments by              
          the insurance companies, petitioners were relieved of the                   
          obligation of paying $9,719 and $9,631 to the issuers of their              
          various credit cards.  In Amos v. Commissioner, 47 T.C. 65, 70              
          (1966), this Court stated:                                                  

               Although petitioner did not receive the amount directly from           
               John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co., it is well settled             
               that income is not limited to direct receipt of cash, Crane            
               v. Commissioner, 331 U.S. 1 (1947); and that the payment of            
               a legal obligation of a taxpayer is income to him even                 
               though such income is not actually received by him, Old                
               Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 279 U.S. 716, 729 (1929);            
               and Schaeffer v. Commissioner, 258 F.2d 861, 864 (C.A. 6,              
               1958), certiorari denied 360 U.S. 917. * * *                           

          The Court, therefore, rejects petitioners' arguments.  All of the           
          charges on petitioners' credit cards represented economic                   
          benefits petitioners received.  Petitioners were relieved of                
          their liabilities to the extent of the amounts paid by the                  
          insurance companies during 1996 and 1997.  Respondent, therefore,           
          is sustained.3  Petitioners incorrectly contend that the                    
          insurance payments on their credit cards are analogous to                   
          insurance recovery amounts for damaged property (such as                    


               3    At trial, counsel for respondent agreed that the income           
          amounts could be reduced or offset by the premiums charged to               
          petitioners for the insurance coverage for the benefits payable             
          arising from petitioners' unemployment.  Petitioners failed to              
          establish the total amount of the premiums for the 2 years at               
          issue or the portion of such premiums allocable to the                      
          unemployment risk (as distinguished from the premiums                       
          attributable to death and disability).                                      




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

Last modified: May 25, 2011