- 2 -
a $272 addition to tax under section 6654 for failure to pay
estimated tax (estimated tax addition). After concessions,2
there are five issues to be decided.
First, does the document petitioner submitted for 2002
constitute a valid return, and consequently, is petitioner liable
for the late filing addition? We hold that it does not
constitute a valid return, and therefore petitioner is liable for
the late filing addition.
Second, are pension distributions and Social Security
benefits petitioner received in 2002 taxable? We hold that they
are.
Third, may petitioner claim itemized deductions for 2002 if
petitioner’s wife filed a “married, filing separate” return and
claimed the standard deduction for the same year? We hold that
he may not.
Fourth, is petitioner liable for the estimated tax addition
for 2002? We hold that he is.
2In respondent’s answer, respondent alleged that, because
petitioner’s wife filed a “married, filing separate” return for
2002, petitioner’s filing status for 2002 was also “married,
filing separate,” not “single” status as set forth in the
deficiency notice. The change in filing status increased the
deficiency to $8,663, increased the addition to tax under sec.
6651(a)(1) to $2,165, and increased the addition to tax under
sec. 6654 to $290. Respondent bears the burden as to the
increased amounts. Rule 142(a)(1). Petitioner does not dispute
that his filing status is “married, filing separately.”
Respondent also conceded that $702 from the Trust for the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Pension Benefit
Fund petitioner received in 2002 was not taxable.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011