TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Susan M. Megin
Docket Number: 5629-09S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 11/23/2009
Pages: 6

UNITED STATES :TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D .,C . 2021 7 SUSAN M . MEGIN, Petitioner, v . ) Docket No . 5629-09S COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent . O R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it i s ORDERED that the Clerk of the ':Court shall transmit herewith to petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial of the above case before Special Trial Judge Lewis R . Carluzzo at Pocatello, Idaho, on October 29, 2009, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of trial . In!accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decisioiz will be entered for respondent . (Signed) Lewis R . Carluzzo Special Trial Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . November 23, 2009 SERVED NOV .2 4 2009 3 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Lewis R . Carluzzo 2 October 29, 200 9 3 Susan M . Megin 5629-09 S 4 The Court has decided to render oral findings of 5 fact and opinion in this case,'sand the following represents 6 the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion . The ora l 7 findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied upon as 8 precedent in any other case . 9 This proceeding for the redetermination of a 10 deficiency is a Small Tax Case :conducted pursuant to the 11 provisions of Section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code of 12 1986, as amended, and Rules 170 through 175 of the Tax Court 13 Rules of Practice and Procedure . 14 This bench opinion is made pursuant to th e 15 authority granted by Section 7459(b) of the Internal Revenue 16 Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the Tax Cour t 17 Rules of Practice and Procedure . 18 Hereinafter in this bench opinion, unles s 19 otherwise noted, section references are to the Interna l 20 Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for the relevant 21 period . 22 Susan Megin appeared pro se . Kelley A . Blaine 23 appeared on behalf of Respondent . 24 In a notice of deficiency, dated January 26, 2009, 25 Respondent determined a $683 deficiency in Petitioner's 2006 Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 4 1 federal income tax . The issue for decision is whethe r 2 disability benefits received by Petitioner during 2006 from 3 the Colorado Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA ) 4 are includable in her income for that year . 5 Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so 6 found . The operative facts, which will be summarized below, 7 necessary for the resolution of the issue are not in dispute 8 and are familiar not only to the parties but to the Court as 9 well . 10 In September of 2008, Petitioner's Tax Court case 11 involving the same issue for a ; previous year was tried and 12 resolved by bench opinion here in Pocatello, Idaho . 13 Actually, this is Petitioner's third Tax Court cas e 14 involving the same issue . The~first case, relating to 2000, 15 was settled by a stipulated decision showing no deficiency 16 for that year . 17 At the time the petition was filed in this case, 18 Petitioner resided in Idaho . 19 Prior to the year in issue, Petitioner wa s 20 employed as an emergency dispatcher for the City of Pueblo, 21 Colorado (the City) . She first began working for the City 22 in the 1970's and, after a break in service, returned to her 23 job in 1990 . As an employee of the City, Petitioner wa s 24 enrolled in, contributed to, and was covered by PERA . Her 25 contributions to PERA were made on a pretax basis . Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 5 1 On May 17, 1996, Petitioner applied to PERA for 2 permanent disability retirement benefits . In a letter , 3 dated August 26, 1996, PERA advised Petitioner that her 4 application for a disability benefit was approved . The 5 August 26, 1996, letter went on to advise Petitioner tha t 6 her monthly benefit received from PERA would be reported as 7 taxable income . 8 During 2006, those benefits totaled $16,018 (the 9 disability benefit) . That amount was calculated wit h 10 reference to Petitioner's years of service and compensation 11 while covered by PERA . 12 Petitioner's 2006 federal income tax return wa s 13 timely filed .' The disability benefit is not included in the 14 income reported on that return . In the above-reference d 15 notice of deficiency, Respondent determined that th e 16 disability benefit is includable in her income for tha t 17 year . Other adjustments made in the notice of deficiency 18 have been agreed to and need not be discussed . 19 Because Petitioner now agrees, at least o n 20 technical grounds, that the disability benefit is includable 21 in her 2006 income, we need not repeat here our analysis as 22 contained in the bench opinion rendered last year . Instead, 23 we'consider Petitioner's proposal as to how this case shoul d 24 be resolved . 25 Petitioner points out that in her first Tax Court Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 4 T 6 1 case, the settlement reflected the Commissioner's agreemen t 2 that the disability benefit was excludable from her 200 0 3 income . Shell further acknowledges that in her second Tax 4 Court case the Court found the opposite for reasons se t 5 forth in the above - referenced bench opinion rendered in 6 2008 . 7 Relying upon the resolution of the 2000 year, 8 Petitioner now proposes that for years from 2000 throug h 9 2008, her disability benefits be treated as excludable from 10 her income for those years . For 2009 and beyond, that is , 11 the years after the bench opinion was rendered, she proposes . 12 to treat current and future disability benefits a s 13 includable in her income . 14 As noted by the Court during trial , Petitioner's 15 proposal has :some practical , common-sense attraction, but it 16 is beyond the Court ' s power to fashion such a remedy . The 17 Court resolves cases on the technical merits of the issues ; 18 we leave it to the parties to settle cases on what might be 19 considered more practical or other grounds . 20 Technically , because the decision entered for 2000 21 was not a decision on the merits, it has no effect on th e 22 decision to be entered in this '; case . For what it's worth, 23 we also point out that decisions entered in small tax cases, 24 as the decision entered in the two previous cases involving 25 Petitioner , are not precedential, in any event . See Section Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 f 7 1 74;63 . As it stands, we have no choice but to reject 2 Petitioner's proposal . Because Petitioner does no t 3 otherwise dispute that the disability benefit is includabl e 4 in. her 2000 income, and for the reasons set forth in th e 5 above-referenced bench opinion, Respondent's adjustment t o 6 that end is sustained . 7 Iniclosing, we think, it appropriate to comment on 8 Petitioner's request that she should not be subject to an y 9 interest that might be imposed , for 2006 . Petitioner was 10 advised that!her request could not be considered in thi s 11 proceeding . See Asciutto v . Commissioner , 26 F .3d 108 (9th 12 Cit . 1994 ) affg . T .C . Memo 1992- 564 ; LTV Corp . v . 13 Commissioner , 64 T .C . 589, 597 ( 1975 ) . Be that as it may, 14 her attention-is invited to Subsections ( e) and (h) o f 15 Section 6404 .. We leave it up to her to decide whether she 16 should seek any relief from interest under procedures 17 contemplated ; by those provisions . 18 To reflect the foregoing, decision will be entered 19 for Respondent . 20 This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact 21 and opinion in this case . 22 (Whereupon, at 1 :35 p .m ., the bench opinion in th e 23 above-entitled matter was concluded .) 2 4 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888