- 6 -
reduction in social security disability benefits. For
example, if an individual were entitled to $10,000 of social
security disability benefits but received only $6,000
because of the receipt of $4,000 of workmen’s compensation
benefits, then for purposes of the provisions taxing social
security benefits, the individual will be considered to have
received $10,000 of social security benefits. [H. Rept. 98-
25, at 26 (1983).]
Petitioners seem to argue that section 104(a)(1) should in
effect “trump” section 86. However, the statutes must be read
together. Section 104(a)(1) provides the general rule that
worker’s compensation benefits are not includable in gross
income. Section 86(d)(3) provides the exception to this general
rule and states that the offset amount is included in income in
the same manner as a Social Security benefit. This has the
effect of equalizing the Federal tax treatment of Social Security
benefits available to various taxpayers who may or may not be
eligible to receive worker’s compensation benefits. See H. Rept.
98-25, supra at 26.
Petitioners also argue that the operation of section
86(d)(3) is unjust. This Court is not the proper place for this
argument. We cannot evaluate the fairness of the law but must
apply it as it is written; it is up to Congress to address
questions of fairness and to make improvements to the law.
Metzger Trust v. Commissioner, 76 T.C. 42, 59-60 (1981), affd.
693 F.2d 459 (5th Cir. 1982).
We have reviewed and found to be correct respondent’s
calculation of the portion of benefits includable in petitioners’
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011