T.C. Summary Opinion 2001-54
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
ROBERT J. AND DORIS L. PEAT, Petitioners v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 5846-99S. Filed April 13, 2001.
Robert J. and Doris L. Peat, pro se.
Bradford A. Johnson, for respondent.
POWELL, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuant
to the provisions of section 74631 of the Internal Revenue Code
in effect at the time the petition was filed. The decision to be
entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion
should not be cited as authority.
1
Unless otherwise indicated, subsequent section references are
to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and
Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and
Procedure.
- 2 -
Respondent determined a deficiency of $465 in petitioners’
1996 Federal income tax. After concessions,2 the sole issue is
whether petitioners must include in their 1996 gross income
Social Security payments of $2,711. Petitioners resided in
Waterford, New York, at the time the petition was filed.
The relevant facts may be summarized as follows. During
1996, petitioners were married and lived together. Petitioners
filed a joint return for the 1996 taxable year. Petitioners
received Social Security benefits of $10,483; they, however, did
not include in income any portion of the benefits received on
their 1996 Federal income tax return. For the 1996 taxable year
petitioners’ modified adjusted gross income was $32,179.
Respondent determined that $2,711 of petitioners’ Social Security
benefits are includable in gross income.
Section 86 governs the taxability of Social Security
benefits. That section provides in relevant part:
SEC. 86(a). In General.-–
(1) In general.-– * * * gross income for the
taxable year of any taxpayer described in subsection
(b) * * * includes social security benefits in an
amount equal to the lesser of-–
(A) one-half of the social security benefits
received during the taxable year, or
(B) one-half of the excess described in
subsection (b)(1).
2
Respondent concedes his original assertion that petitioners
understated their 1996 interest income by $476.
- 3 -
* * * * * * *
(b) Taxpayers to Whom Subsection (a) Applies.-–
(1) In general.-–A taxpayer is described in this
subsection if-–
(A) the sum of-–
(i) the modified adjusted gross income
of the taxpayer for the taxable year, plus
(ii) one-half of the social security
benefits received during the taxable year,
exceeds
(B) the base amount.
(2) Modified adjusted gross income.-–For
purposes of this subsection, the term “modified
adjusted gross income” means adjusted gross income-–
(A) determined without regard to this
section and sections 135, 137, 221, 911, 931,
and 933, and
(B) increased by the amount of interest
received or accrued by the taxpayer during the
taxable year which is exempt from tax.
(c) Base Amount and Adjusted Base Amount.-–For purposes
of this section-–
(1) Base amount.-–The term “base amount” means-–
(A) except as otherwise provided in this
paragraph, $25,000,
(B) $32,000 in the case of a joint return,
and
(C) zero in the case of a taxpayer who-–
(i) is married as of the close of the
taxable year * * * but does not file a joint
return for such year, and
- 4 -
(ii) does not live apart from his spouse
at all times during the taxable year.
Petitioners do not contend that under the literal language
of section 86 respondent’s determination is incorrect. Instead,
petitioners argue that section 86 is inequitable in that it
treats persons not married and living together or persons married
and living apart with preference to those individuals who are
married and living together. Petitioners argue that they should
be entitled to double the section 86 base amount of $25,000 for
single individuals as opposed to the $32,000 base amount for
married couples filing jointly.
As we noted in Everage v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-373,
Petitioner’s chagrin and frustration may be understandable.
Nonetheless, we must apply the statutes as Congress wrote
them and we do not have the power to rewrite section 86 to
avoid this anomaly. See Huntsberry v. Commissioner, 83 T.C.
742, 747-748 (1984).
The taxpayers in Roberts v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-172,
also questioned the fairness of section 86. In Roberts, we noted
that
this is not the proper forum to question the policy
considerations that impelled the enactment of this
legislation. * * * The legislative history of section 86,
as enacted in 1983, demonstrates that Congress had a valid
and rational basis for the distinctions made in the
statute[.]
* * * * * * *
We recognize that “‘No scheme of taxation, whether the
tax is imposed on property, income, or purchases of goods
and services, has yet been devised which is free of all
discriminatory impact.’” Druker v. Commissioner, 77 T.C.
- 5 -
867, 872 (1981) (quoting San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v.
Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 41 (1973)), affd. in part on this
issue and revd. in part on another issue 697 F.2d 46 (2d
Cir. 1982).
In light of the foregoing we sustain respondent’s
determination.
Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case
Division.
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.