Walter A. and Alfreda Kocot - Page 8

                                        - 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            
               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, since               

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011