- 5 - Petitioners did not challenge respondent's assertion regarding the information return by DFAS to Mr. Simon.4 For the year in question, as well as in prior years, petitioners did not include the retirement benefits received from DFAS as income on their Federal income tax returns. In an audit during 1987 of petitioners' 1981, 1984, and 1985 tax returns, respondent's examining agent had proposed including in income the retirement benefits petitioner received from DFAS; however, at respondent's appellate division level, the proposal of the examining agent was reversed. For the year at issue, respondent determined in the notice of deficiency that the 1994 retirement benefits to petitioner were includable in gross income. Respondent made no allowance or credit for the amount withheld as Federal income tax from petitioner's portion of the retirement benefits. As noted 4 Mr. Simon, on his Federal income tax return for 1994, reported the full amount of the retirement benefits and claimed an alimony deduction in the amount of $15,564. Respondent issued a notice of deficiency to Mr. Simon disallowing the claimed deduction, and a petition was filed on behalf of his estate in this Court challenging that determination. Estate of Robert V. Simon, Deceased, Kathleen L. Nailor, Executrix v. Commissioner, docket No. 3549-01S. A stipulated decision was entered in that case on Oct. 18, 2002, which provides "That there is no deficiency in income tax due from petitioner or overpayment due to petitioner for the taxable year 1994." The record of that case does not include any information return from DFAS relating to the retirement benefits in question; however, respondent allowed a reduction of the benefits taxable to Mr. Simon for the amount paid to petitioner.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011