- 7 - This omission did not, as petitioners assert, mean that respondent excluded the $8,000 in estimated tax payments from the computations. In fact, the notice of deficiency determined that the reason for the $986 deficiency was due to an increase in petitioners’ reported taxable income from $79,355 to $83,006, and accordingly an increase in the amount of tax due from $15,227 to $16,213. Second, petitioners claim that despite their error in not reporting the correct amount of total Social Security benefits received on line 20a of their 2002 return, because the corrected figure did not change the amount of the total adjusted gross income, their income tax liability should not change. Notably, the parties agree that petitioners’ adjusted gross income for taxable year 2002 was $98,657.62. The June 16 letter changed the amount of standard deduction originally claimed by petitioners on their 2002 return from $7,850 to $9,650, as both petitioners were over 65 years of age in 2002. This correction, coupled with the $6,000 exemption, resulted in total taxable income of $83,007.62 and not $84,807, as petitioners maintained at trial. Accordingly, the amount of tax due on petitioners’ total taxable income of $83,007.62 was $16,213, with $1,530.25 being the correct amount of tax owed by petitioners. Since petitioners remitted $2,016.25 with their completed 2002 return, they would have been entitled to an overpayment of $486. However, sincePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011