2001 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 258">*258 PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b), THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE.
DINAN, SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE: This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of
Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioners' Federal income tax of $ 2,340 for the taxable year 1997.
The sole issue for decision is whether certain Social Security disability benefits are includable in petitioners' gross income.
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulations of fact and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. Petitioners resided in Richmond, California, 2001 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 258">*259 on the date the petition was filed in this case.
Petitioners filed a joint Federal income tax return for taxable year 1997. They reported $ 58,534 in adjusted gross income on the return. They received $ 13,857 in Social Security disability benefits in 1997, but did not report any portion of this amount on their return. Respondent issued petitioners a statutory notice of deficiency with the determination that they had unreported income of $ 11,778 from the Social Security benefits. 1
The inclusion of Social Security benefits in gross income is governed by
Petitioners do not dispute receiving $ 13,857 in Social Security benefits. Their sole argument is that the IRS has made inconsistent rulings regarding whether the benefits are taxable. They assert that an IRS employee agreed that the benefits were not taxable with respect to a prior year. We note that the law governing this area has changed over the years. However, we need not address whether the employee's treatment was correct with respect to petitioners' situation2001 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 258">*261 in a prior year. Regardless of the soundness of the employee's treatment, respondent is not bound by advice given to a taxpayer which is based upon a mistake of law,
Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case Division.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered under Rule 155.
1. Respondent also determined that petitioners had unreported income of $ 17 in interest and $ 52 in dividends. Respondent concedes the interest adjustment and petitioners do not dispute the dividends adjustment.↩