- 4 -
portion of the Social Security benefits was $9,6043 and,
accordingly, determined the deficiency of $2,835.4
The fundamental question in this case is whether petitioner
and his spouse “lived apart” from each other during the taxable
year 2002. As noted above, petitioner lived at Reno, Nevada,
that year because of his employment but admitted that he
occasionally visited his spouse at their matrimonial domicile.
In McAdams v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 373, 378-379 (2002), the
Court concluded that, for purposes of section 86(c)(1)(C)(ii),
“living apart” means living in separate residences at all times
during the taxable year. This means that the taxpayer and his or
her spouse live in separate residences on each day of the year.
Dubois v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-222. The fact that
petitioner in this case lived in Reno, Nevada, away from his
3The Social Security benefits worksheet is not required to
be filed as part of the return. At trial, however, the parties
offered into evidence the worksheet, and it shows that, even
though petitioner concluded that no portion of his Social
Security benefits was taxable, he made the computation for that
portion of the worksheet (lines 10 through 18), and that
computation reflected the taxable portion of his Social Security
benefits to be $9,604 (the identical amount determined by
respondent). Petitioner ignored that result because he
considered such result to be inconsistent with the fact that he
lived separate and apart from his spouse during that year, and,
since line 9 of the form stated that, if he “lived apart from
your spouse for all of 2002, enter -0- on line 20b”, he followed
that directive and entered zero taxable Social Security income on
his return.
4The deficiency includes, additionally, the $26 in interest
income determined in the notice of deficiency.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011