|
Posted by Ernie Klein on March 20, 2008, 11:10 pm
Please log in for more thread options
In article
> I asked about a taxpayer who became blind and shortly after died,
> within the same tax year, without ever having been debilitated by the
> blindness because he was never blind and conscious at the same time.
Beg your pardon, "...never blind and CONSCIOUS at the same time." How
do you determine blindness in an unconscious person?
An accident perhaps, that left the person unconscious from which he
never recovered and was left obviously blind from the same accident
(both eyes destroyed for example), so that he would never see if he did
recover?
I would think (I am not a tax professional so what do I know) that the
IRS would require, at least, that the tax payer be aware that they were
blind before the exemption would be allowed, and not an accident victim
who died from their injuries which included injuries to the eyes.
If I am misreading your question, please correct me.
--
-Ernie-
--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
|
|
Posted by Seth on March 24, 2008, 12:40 pm
Please log in for more thread options
>I would think (I am not a tax professional so what do I know) that the
>IRS would require, at least, that the tax payer be aware that they were
>blind before the exemption would be allowed,
So an Alzheimer's victim who isn't (provably) aware of anything
wouldn't get the exemption?
Seth
--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
|
|
Posted by Daniel Scott on March 21, 2008, 3:49 pm
Please log in for more thread options I asked:
> Is a taxpayer who dies in the tax year, who was sighted at the
> beginning of the tax year, but became blind shortly before dying,
> entitled to the increased standard deduction for blindness?
>
> How is total blindness defined? Is there a minimum time that the
> taxpayer must be alive but (if that's the definition) unable to see to
> qualify? Must the taxpayer be conscious to qualify?
Readng further in Pub 17 I see
The amount of the standard deduction for a decedent's final tax return
is the same as it would have been had the decedent continued to live.
However, if the decedent was not 65 or older at the time of death, the
higher standard deduction for age cannot be claimed.
There is no exception for the blindness benefit, just the age
benefit. So it seems that a decedent who became blind a few days
before dying during 2007 gets the same treatment as a decedent who
became blind early in 2007 and did not regain sight at any time before
January 1, 2008.
This still leaves out what it mean to be blind, especially other than
under the given definition of "partly blind". (Apparently you are not
partly blind unless you have a certified statement to that effect.)
The old proverb teaches us that "There's none so blind as those who
will not see" -- in this situation the question is whether those who
cannot see are, by that reason, totally blind for IRS purposes, and
thus blind for IRS purposes.
I now believe there is no minimum time before the end of the tax year
that one must be blind; Ernie Klein thinks one must be aware of one's
inability to see to be blind. (Would that apply to a newborn who was
born without eyes?)
Conversely, it seems that because of the "last day of the year"
standard, someone who has been blind for several years but regains
sight (such as through a successful corneal implant) late in December
does not qualify for the higher standard deduction -- the rules here
often use arbitrary cutoffs that defy common sense.
--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Definition of 59 1/2 | September 18, 2008, 8:04 pm |
| Definition of Student | January 24, 2007, 1:56 am |
| Support vs. gift definition | December 13, 2006, 10:57 pm |
| Re: Support vs. gift definition | December 16, 2006, 8:58 pm |
| Ad Valorem Tax: What is the definition of a "House"? | January 28, 2007, 5:54 pm |
| Definition of NJ Gross Receipts | February 10, 2008, 2:45 pm |
| what is definition of intent to evade tax | June 23, 2008, 6:40 pm |
| 1040 NR and definition of "US taxable income" | September 2, 2008, 6:42 pm |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap