Jacqueline and Theodore Major Green - Page 5

                                        - 5 -                                         
          personal injuries or sickness incurred in the course of                     
          employment.”  Simply put, title II of the Social Security Act               
          (the Act) is not “in the nature of a workmen’s compensation act.”           
          The Act allows for disability payments to individuals regardless            
          of whether the individual was injured “in the course of                     
          employment”.  See 42 U.S.C. sec. 423(d)(1)(A) (2000); cf. Norris            
          v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-152, affd. 46 Fed. Appx. 582               
          (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that a statute is not considered to be             
          in the nature of a workmen’s compensation act if it allows for              
          disability payments for any reason other than on-the-job                    
          injuries).  Accordingly, we sustain respondent’s determinations             
          relating to the Social Security benefits.  Sec. 86(a).                      
               Petitioners contend that they are entitled, pursuant to                
          sections 165 and 172, to deduct losses relating to the judgment.            
          Section 165 allows a deduction for any loss sustained during the            
          taxable year and not compensated for by insurance or otherwise.             
          Sec. 165(a).  The deduction, however, is limited to those losses            
          incurred in a trade or business, in any transaction entered into            
          for profit, or as a result of a fire, storm, theft, or other                
          casualty.  See sec. 165(c)(1), (2), and (3).  Petitioners’                  
          claimed loss was not incurred in a trade or business or in a                
          transaction entered into for profit (i.e., the injuries were                
          incurred while shopping for groceries).  Accordingly, we sustain            
          respondent’s determinations that petitioners are not entitled to            






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011