PURSUANT TO
Decision will be entered for respondent.
MORRISON, Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of
The respondent determined a deficiency of $2,047 in the petitioners' federal income tax for the taxable year 2006. The issue for decision is whether a portion of the Social Security benefits the petitioners received in 2006 is includable in their gross income.1
BackgroundSome of the facts have been stipulated, and they are so found. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. At the time they filed their petition, the petitioners resided in Georgia.
During *10 the year in issue, the petitioners received Social Security benefits totaling $15,945. The petitioners filed a Form 1040A, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for the 2006 taxable year. They elected to file jointly and reported adjusted gross income of $59,007.50. This amount did not, however, include any of the $15,945 of Social Security benefits that the petitioners received during the 2006 taxable year.
The respondent contends that a portion of the Social Security benefits the petitioners received in 2006 is includable as gross income under section 86. The petitioners contend otherwise, claiming that taxing Social Security benefits amounts to double taxation.
DiscussionThe amount of Social Security benefits to be included in gross income is determined by a statutory formula found in section 86. See sec. 86(a)-(d). Section 86 requires inclusion of a portion of the payments if the sum of the taxpayer's adjusted gross income (with certain modifications not relevant here) and one-half of the Social Security benefits received exceeds a specified "base amount".
The petitioners argue that the amounts that they contributed to the Social Security system have already been taxed and that they should not be taxed again as they receive benefits from Social Security. This argument is unavailing for reasons we explained in
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered for respondent.
Footnotes
1. The petitioners conceded at trial that $95 received from Manhattan Life Insurance Co. should be included in their income.↩