DocketNumber: Docket No. 6071-15.
Judges: ASHFORD
Filed Date: 7/19/2017
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
Decision will be entered for respondent.
ASHFORD,
The parties submitted this case to the Court for decision without trial under
Michael S. Yoklic (petitioner) filed a claim for unemployment benefits, effective April 22, 2012, with the Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES). DES initially found petitioner eligible to receive benefits of $240 per week for each of the weeks ending May 5 to August 4, 2012. It is undisputed that petitioner received $3,360 in unemployment benefits*144 from DES during that period.
Thereafter, DES issued petitioner a determination letter dated August 9, 2012, followed by decision letters dated September 14 and October 25, 2012. These letters stated that petitioner was not entitled to the unemployment benefits *145 received, resulting in an overpayment of unemployment benefits of $3,360 determined against him.*145 compensation was "fully taxable because it is considered a substitute for wages." Petitioners timely petitioned this Court for redetermination of the deficiency.
Gross income includes "all income from whatever source derived" unless specifically excluded.
In their posttrial brief petitioners*146 contend that the unemployment compensation should not be included in their gross income because they repaid it pursuant to DES' 2012 letters in the subsequent taxable year. Petitioners seem to *147 be arguing that the doctrine of rescission, which is a minor exception to the claim-of-right doctrine, applies here.
The claim-of-right doctrine arises out of the need for certainty in allocating items to the appropriate annual accounting period.
The doctrine of rescission represents an exception to the claim-of-right doctrine.*147
On the basis of the record before us, we find that petitioner's obligation to repay the unemployment compensation he received from DES in 2012 became fixed in that same year. However, petitioners do not contend, nor is there any evidence in the record indicating, that they made provisions for repayment also in that same year. Instead, the record clearly shows repayment to DES the following taxable year in September 2013. The doctrine of rescission thus does not save petitioners from respondent's adjustment including in their gross income for 2012 the unemployment compensation that, in that year, petitioner received from DES.
Accordingly, pursuant to
We have considered all of the arguments made*148 by the parties and, to the extent they are not addressed herein, we find them to be moot, irrelevant, or without merit.
*149 To reflect the foregoing,
1. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year at issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2. Respondent concedes that petitioners did not overreport their Federal income tax withholding for 2012.↩
3. The September 14, 2012, letter states that petitioner was overpaid unemployment benefits of $3,660 during 2012; we believe this stated amount was a typographical error and that the correct amount of overpaid unemployment benefits was $3,360, as stated in the other two letters.↩