- 3 -
prior loan against his annuity account; the remaining $1,100
represented a payment to petitioner in partial surrender of his
annuity account. At the time of these distributions, petitioner
was younger than age 59 1/2.
By letter dated April 26, 2002, the Department of the
Treasury notified petitioner that the Internal Revenue Service
had on that date applied petitioner’s $1,738 “Federal payment” to
offset petitioner’s nontax Federal debt with DOE. The letter
does not otherwise identify the source of the Federal payment.
On his 2002 Form 1040A, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return,
dated March 2003, petitioner claimed head of household status.
Petitioner listed Tyrone as the qualifying child and claimed
Tyrone as a dependent.2 On his Form 1040A, petitioner reported
$6,468 of taxable annuity distributions and zero tax liability.
On line 39 of his Form 1040A, petitioner reported $531 as
“Federal income tax withheld”. On line 40 of his Form 1040A,
petitioner reported “1,725 (est)” as “2002 estimated tax payments
2 Petitioner listed Tyrone as his dependent on line 6c of
his Form 1040A, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, and also
claimed on line 26 thereof $6,000 of exemptions that included a
$3,000 dependency exemption for Tyrone. Inconsistently, on line
4 of Form 1040A, in claiming head of household status, petitioner
listed Tyrone as a qualifying person “who is a child but not your
dependent”. Apparently on the basis of this latter
representation, the parties have stipulated that petitioner did
not claim Tyrone as his dependent for 2002. Because the
stipulation is clearly contrary to the fact disclosed by the
record that petitioner claimed the dependency exemption with
respect to Tyrone, we shall disregard the stipulation. See Cal-
Maine Foods, Inc. v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 181, 195 (1989).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011