Case Name: Richard HOFF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-07-13
Citations: 667 F. App'x 638
Docket Number: No. 14-16291
Parties: Richard HOFF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 638–639

Head Matter:
Richard HOFF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-16291
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted June 16, 2016 San Francisco, California
FILED July 13, 2016
Matthew James Dowd, Attorney, Washington, DC, Kathryn Elizabeth Boatman, Lloyd Lee Davis, III, Esquire, Attorney, Houston, TX, Andrews Kurth LLP, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Alex G. Tse, DOJ-USAO, Shea Lita Bond, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Richard Hoff appeals from the judgment of the district court, which affirmed the Social Security Administration's ("SSA") reduction of his supplemental security income ("SSI") benefits. An administrative law judge ("ALJ") concluded that because Hoff failed to pay his pro rata share of the total monthly household operating expenses, he received in-kind support and maintenance, triggering a reduction in SSI benefits. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1130, 416.1133(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
1. Hoff argues that although he did not pay for his half of the household expenses in cash, he still met his pro rata share by contributing goods (such as firewood) and services (such as repairing the roof). The ALJ properly rejected Hoffs argument. Household operating expenses are defined as "the household's total monthly expendi tures for food, rent, mortgage, property-taxes, heating fuel, gas, electricity, water, sewerage, and garbage collection service." 20 C.F.R. § 416.1133(c). The SSA's Program Operations Manual System ("POMS") provides: "An individual's contribution equals the average amount of cash he/she spends on household operating expenses." POMS SI 00835.020 (B.3) (emphasis added); see also Warn v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1005 (9th Cir. 2006) ("The POMS does not have the force of law, but it is persuasive authority." (citing Hermes v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 926 F.2d 789, 791 n.1 (9th Cir. 1991))). The POMS explicitly excludes "[services and goods traded in return for food and shelter" as contribution towards the pro rata share. POMS SI 00835.020 (B.3); see also POMS SI 00835.480 (C) (same). Accordingly, the ALJ did not err in rejecting Hoffs provision of firewood and household services as contribution towards his pro rata share of household expenses.
2. Hoff also contends that the ALJ erred by failing to consider his rebuttal evidence of the actual value of his shelter. Under the presumed value rule, a claimant .may rebut the presumption that the in-kind support and maintenance is worth one-third the federal benefit rate by showing that the actual value of that in-kind support and maintenance is less than the presumed one-third value. 20 C.F.R. § 416.1140(a)(2). The actual value of shelter is determined based on "the current market value . minus any payment [the claimant] make[s] for [it]." Id. Hoff's argument concerning what a renter would pay on the open market for his living situation is irrelevant because Hoff, a co-owner of the house, received in-kind support and maintenance in the form of mortgage payments, not rent. Hoff has not submitted any evidence that he and his co-owner did not have an equal ownership in the house or that they were not equally responsible for paying the mortgage. Thus, Hoff has failed to rebut the application of the presumed value.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.