Haar v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Held, payments to petitioner from the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund cannot be excluded from income under either sec. 104(a)(1), 104(a)(4), or 105(d), I.R.C. 1954.
1Opinion of the Court
Whitaker, Judge:
Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioners’ Federal income tax and additions to tax in the following amounts:
Addition to tax
Year Deficiency sec. 6653(a)1
1976 $364.97 $18.24
1977 2,650.37 132.51
1978 2,948.18 147.41
1979 2,988.00 149.40
Due to concessions, the sole issue is whether petitioners were entitled to exclude from income amounts Mr. Haar received from the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The stipulation of facts and exhibits attached thereto are incorporated herein by reference.
Daniel S. Haar (hereinafter petitioner) and Emma F. Haar,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- United States v. William H. Price, Jr.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1961
- Pearson v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1981
- Riley v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1957
- Brownholtz v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1978
3Cited by43 opinions
- Take v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1984
- Daniel S. And Emma F. Haar v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1983
- Thomas Take and Janice Take v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
- William D. & Joyce M. Reimels v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2006
- Reimels v. Comm'rUnited States Tax Court · 2004
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.