- 5 -
On March 4, 2006, petitioners timely mailed and postmarked a
petition disputing the $437 tax deficiency respondent had
determined on the ground that the entire amount petitioner
received in 2003 as Social Security disability benefits should be
treated as nontaxable workmen’s compensation benefits under
section 104(a)(1).
On June 2, 2006, respondent filed an answer alleging an
increase to $2,498 in the tax deficiency determined against
petitioners for 2003 on the ground that the $11,068 loss
deduction petitioners claimed relating to petitioner’s
uncollected judgment was not allowable. Based on the
disallowance of the $11,068 loss deduction and the resulting
increase in petitioners’ income, respondent also recalculated and
increased the portion of the Social Security disability benefits
petitioner received in 2003 that was taxable.
Also in his answer, respondent asserted a $499 section
6662(a) accuracy-related penalty against petitioners for 2003.
On July 19, 2006, respondent filed under Rule 37(c) a Motion
for Entry of Order That Undenied Allegations in Answer Be Deemed
Admitted. Petitioners did not file a reply to respondent’s
answer or a response to respondent’s Rule 37(c) motion, and on
September 20, 2006, we granted respondent’s Rule 37(c) motion.
On October 23, 2006, respondent filed the instant motion for
summary judgment.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007