Dovid and Marcia L. Goldfarb - Page 3

                                        - 2 -                                         
          Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule                  
          references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.            
               Respondent determined a $2,053 deficiency in petitioners’              
          2003 Federal income tax.  The issues for decision are:  (1)                 
          Whether Social Security disability benefits received by                     
          petitioner Marcia Goldfarb are taxable, and (2) whether                     
          respondent is estopped from determining a deficiency against                
          petitioners with respect to the benefits.1                                  
                                     Background                                       
               Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.               
          The stipulation of facts and attached exhibits are incorporated             
          herein by this reference.  At the time the petition was filed,              
          petitioners resided in Wesley Chapel, Florida.  Unless otherwise            
          indicated, references to petitioner are to Marcia Goldfarb.                 
               Petitioner formerly worked for the Montgomery County,                  
          Maryland, police department.  In 1998, petitioner retired due to            
          a work-related injury that left her disabled and began receiving            
          Social Security disability benefits.  In 2003, petitioner                   
          received $13,524 of disability benefits from the Social Security            
          Administration.                                                             
               Petitioners filed a joint 2003 Federal income tax return               
          reporting $76,633 of adjusted gross income.  This amount did not            


               1 Petitioners filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on Dec. 5,           
          2006.  For the reasons discussed infra, we shall deny                       
          petitioners’ motion.                                                        




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

Last modified: May 25, 2011