Diabled Dependent

[Armando Beaujolais]

I've had a client for many years whose son is disabled. He's 26, on SS disability, and has been doing the sheltered workshop thing for several years with minimal income. This year he had a $7,000 W2 from a company that is not a sheltered workshop. The vocational rehab is geared toward training these folks so they can go out and work in a regular workplace.

My question is whether the $7,000 amounts to "substantial gainful activity" to make the person no longer meet the definition of permanently and totally disabled. It's gainful. The "substantial" part is my question.

Any insight?

[Snaggletooth]

Gainful I think

Armtwisto, I'm certainly not your most learned source, but I believe the combination of a larger W-2 and the fact that it is not from an appropriate agency means that he is actually "gainfully" employed. The impact of this goes much further than this return, if you think about the "permanently" disabled language.

To use logic which you yourself have invoked many times, it is a preponderance of the conditions surrounding the situation. This is always a reliable and "safe" answer against which there can be no conceivable argument.

But as you have presented this, you would think there would some sort of statutory limits. This would make it easier for us, but it would involve possibly categorizing employers into "types" which could identify disability agency employers, etc. and also setting dollar limits on W-2s. Congress never allows for these things when they cook up tax laws, it gets turned over to IRS for "regulations" and at that point the fun and court cases begins.
At income levels this low, court cases are not worth it for anyone, so they don't happen.

So if someone twisted my arm and made me decide straight up and down "yes" or "no", I would have to say this guy is gainfully employed.