Theodore Major Green and Jacqueline Green - Page 5

                                        - 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