Robert B. Leppin - Page 5




                                        - 4 -                                         
          a tier 2 annuity payment which represents a ratable recovery of             
          the taxpayer’s contributions to the railroad retirement plan made           
          in the form of taxes.  Sec. 72(b)(1), (d)(1), (r)(2).                       
               Petitioner’s position in this case is unclear.  In his                 
          petition, he argues that the “railroad retirement pension is                
          subject to form 1040, line 20”; namely that it should be treated            
          as Social Security benefits.  At trial, petitioner made a                   
          somewhat contradictory statement that the benefits were comprised           
          of tier 1 benefits in the amount of $11,448, tier 2 benefits in             
          the amount of $7,794, and a supplemental pension of $612.  Where            
          petitioner derived the first two amounts is unknown.                        
               Whether petitioner received any tier 1 benefits at all is              
          also unclear.  In general terms, the RRB uses Form RRB-1099,                
          Payments By the Railroad Retirement Board, to report tier 1                 
          benefits, and Form RRB-1099-R to report tier 2 benefits.  See               
          generally Internal Revenue Service Publication 575, Pension and             
          Annuity Income, and Internal Revenue Service Publication 915,               
          Social Security and Equivalent Railroad Retirement Benefits.  In            
          the present case, on the same document in evidence on which the             
          Form RRB-1099-R was reproduced, there was also a copy of a Form             
          RRB-1099.  This latter form was blank except for the notation               
          “THIS FORM NOT REQUIRED FOR YOUR 1998 TAXES”.                               
               From the record in this case, we are unable to ascertain               
          whether petitioner in the first instance should have received               






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

Last modified: May 25, 2011