                        T.C. Memo. 2001-281



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                JEROME FRANK HARRIS, Petitioner v.
           COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 5715-00.                    Filed October 11, 2001.


     Jerome Frank Harris, pro se.

     Innessa Glazman, for respondent.


              MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION


     DEAN, Special Trial Judge:     Respondent determined a

deficiency in petitioner’s Federal income tax return of $974 for

1998.   Unless otherwise indicated, subsequent section references

are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue.

The sole issue for decision is whether the $4,017 of unemployment

compensation petitioner received during 1998 is includable in his

gross income for that year.
                               - 2 -

     Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.

The stipulation of facts and the accompanying exhibits are

incorporated herein by this reference.   Petitioner resided in Mt.

Rainier, Maryland, at the time the petition in this case was

filed.

                         FINDINGS OF FACT

     Petitioner timely filed his 1998 tax return with the

Internal Revenue Service upon which he reported wages of $31,157.

     In August of 1998, petitioner was employed by Washington

Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (Metro), in the District of

Columbia.   As a result of an incident at Metro, petitioner was

suspended pending investigation.   After concluding its

investigation of the circumstances surrounding the incident,

Metro terminated petitioner’s employment.   Petitioner then filed

an unemployment compensation claim with the Greenbelt, Maryland,

Unemployment Office.   Petitioner was informed that he would be

denied his unemployment benefits if, after an investigation, it

was determined that he was involved in work-related misconduct at

the time of his discharge.   After the initial investigation the

District of Columbia, Department of Employment Services (DCDES)1

determined that petitioner was not involved in any work-related


     1
      Although petitioner filed for unemployment in Maryland, his
unemployment compensation was paid pursuant to an interstate
claim. An interstate claim is a claim filed by an individual who
lives in another State, but worked in the District of Columbia.
The DCDES then processes and makes payments on the claim.
                               - 3 -

misconduct.   Metro disagreed with that determination and filed an

appeal.   An appeal hearing was conducted by DCDES in November

1998, and again, petitioner prevailed.    Metro disagreed with the

results of the appeal hearing and proceeded to trial where once

again petitioner prevailed.   Because petitioner prevailed over

Metro at every proceeding, the DCDES considered him eligible to

receive unemployment benefits for 1998.

     During 1998, petitioner was paid unemployment compensation

by the DCDES.   Petitioner actually received seven checks, each

for $618, totaling $4,326 in unemployment compensation from the

DCDES during the year in issue.   The DCDES, however, filed a Form

1099-G, Certain Government Payments, for 1998 which indicated

that petitioner was paid only $4,017 of unemployment

compensation.   Petitioner did not report his receipt of the

unemployment compensation on his 1998 income tax return.

Respondent is asserting a deficiency computed on the lesser

amount.

     Respondent determined a deficiency of $974 in petitioner’s

1998 income tax.   The deficiency is attributable solely to

petitioner’s omission of $4,017 of unemployment compensation from

the gross income reported on his return.

     Petitioner maintains that he was not required to report the

unemployment compensation income because he did not know if he

“was getting checks from the State of Maryland Unemployment
                                 - 4 -

Office * * * or from the D.C. Government.”      Petitioner conceded

that he received the unemployment compensation checks, but

claimed he was unsure whether they were for 1998 or 1999.

                                OPINION

     Section 61 provides that all income, from whatever source

derived, is includable in gross income unless specifically

excluded by another provision.     See Commissioner v. Glenshaw

Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 431 (1955).      “In the case of an

individual, gross income includes unemployment compensation.”

Sec. 85(a).    “[T]he term ‘unemployment compensation’ means any

amount received under a law of the United States or of a State

which is in the nature of unemployment compensation.”      Sec.

85(b).   “The amount of any item of gross income shall be included

in the gross income for the taxable year in which received by the

taxpayer”.    Sec. 451(a).   Petitioner has not stated any

disagreement with these basic rules.

     Petitioner testified that he did not report his unemployment

compensation for 1998 because he was unsure of what year the

unemployment compensation checks were for.      Yet, he admitted at

trial that he received and endorsed the checks issued to him by

the DCDES during 1998.    Based on the record we find that

petitioner did receive $4,017 in unemployment compensation from

the DCDES in 1998.
                                 - 5 -

     In his testimony, petitioner mentioned problems he has had

with the Internal Revenue Service with respect to taxes for

earlier years.   Such matters are not relevant to our decision as

to the amount at issue concerning petitioner’s tax for 1998 and

in any other respect are not before this Court.

     Accordingly, we conclude that petitioner failed to report

$4,017 of unemployment compensation that should have been

included in his gross income for the tax year 1998.        Thus,

petitioner is liable for the deficiency determined by respondent.

     To reflect the foregoing,

                                              Decision will be entered

                                         for respondent.
