Robert B. Leppin - Page 7




                                        - 6 -                                         
               Respondent’s calculation of petitioner’s tax liability in              
          the notice of deficiency is not in the record.  However, based              
          upon the record before us we find that petitioner’s taxable                 
          income was determined in the notice of deficiency as follows:               
                    RRB benefits                  $19,845                             
                    Other income                   10,857                             
                    Adjusted gross income (AGI)              $30,702                  
                    Medical expenses                4,801                             
                    Less 7.5% AGI                  (2,303)                            
                    Taxes paid                      6,976                             
                    Total itemized deductions                 (9,474)                 
                    Personal exemption deduction              (2,700)                 
                    Taxable income                            18,528                  
          According to the explanation provided to the Court with regard to           
          respondent’s concession, respondent:  (1) Decreased the taxable             
          income reflected in the notice of deficiency by $13,290 to                  
          reflect that portion of the RRB benefits not includable in gross            
          income; and (2) reduced the taxable income by a further $492 to             
          reflect an increased medical expense deduction allowed in light             
          of the change to adjusted gross income.  Based on these                     
          adjustments to the notice of deficiency, respondent determined              
          that petitioner’s correct taxable income was $4,745 and that the            
          correct amount of the deficiency was $712.  It appears, however,            
          that respondent’s calculations are in error in two respects.                
          First, the amount of the increase in the medical expense                    
          deduction appears to be too small in light of the change to                 
          petitioner’s adjusted gross income.  See sec. 213(a).  Second,              
          the calculation does not appear to account for a portion of                 
          petitioner’s income which is long-term capital gain and                     






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

Last modified: May 25, 2011