- 6 -
petitioner’s concession that the $28,725 paid to petitioner by
OPM in 1995 is includable in petitioner’s 1995 gross income.3
Also, by the petition, petitioner does not claim any benefit
(either a reduction in the tax deficiency or in the additions to
tax as determined by the notice) attributable to the rental real
estate loss, itemized deductions, and tax payments reported on
the 1995 Form 1040. Nor did she offer any substantiation of
those items during the trial.4 Therefore, we find that
3 The $28,725 included in petitioner’s gross income by
respondent is characterized in the notice as a “gross
distribution”. The notice indicates that that adjustment is
based upon a 1995 Form 1099R (the 1099R) issued by OPM to
petitioner. We have examined a blank 1995 1099R. Box 1 of the
1099R provides for the amount of the “gross distribution” and box
2a provides for the “taxable amount”. Because OPM advised
petitioner at the time of her retirement that she had been
credited with $59,479 in “retirement contributions” during her
career with the Federal Government, it is possible that box 2a of
the 1099R’s issued to petitioner by OPM since her retirement has
listed a “taxable amount” smaller than the “gross distribution”
listed in box 1, and that the difference represents the
nontaxable return of her investment in her retirement as computed
by applying the “exclusion ratio” of sec. 72(b). Alternatively,
it may be that the 1099Rs have left box 2a blank and that
“Taxable amount not determined” in box 2b has been checked in
which event it was petitioner’s obligation to compute the
excluded amount pursuant to sec. 72(b). Because the 1099R for
1995 is not in evidence, we have no basis for concluding that a
portion of $28,725 included in petitioner’s income by respondent
is subject to exclusion from income under sec. 72(b). For prior
years for which a refund claim may be timely filed and for future
years, however, petitioner may be entitled, pursuant to sec.
72(b), to exclude from income a portion of her pension.
4 Regarding the payment of taxes, petitioner testified
during the trial that she did not know of any tax payments by her
or Mr. Quarterman for 1995, and that because she and Mr.
Quarterman “were due a refund for 1995 * * * [she] would not have
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011