|
Mrs. James is receiving widow’s benefits on her deceased husband’s record. She purchased
a more expensive home based on her receipt of these benefits and is paying a higher
mortgage than she otherwise would have paid. Mrs. James based her decision to move
on the additional income provided by the SSA benefit that she was entitled to as a
widow.
A year later, we discover that Mrs. James’ deceased husband was not fully insured;
therefore, she was not entitled to the benefits. Mrs. James is overpaid.
Mrs. James incurred a financial obligation by purchasing a more expensive home based
on the benefit payments that she believed she would continue to receive.
Mrs. James files for waiver.
She is now in a worse financial position than if she had not received widow’s benefits.
|
We determine that Mrs. James is not at fault in causing the overpayment. Her overpayment
is against equity and good conscience. We may grant the waiver.
Justification: Mrs. James changed her position for the worse because she relied on her widow’s benefit
payments to buy a more expensive house then she would have, if she had not been receiving
the benefits.
|
|
After we awarded retirement benefits to John Smith, he retires assuming that he would
receive regular monthly benefit payments.
Three years later, we discover that Mr. Smith did not meet insured status and he is
not entitled to benefits. Mr. Smith is overpaid.
Mr. Smith could not get his old job back because of his age and he is unable to get
another job elsewhere. Mr. Smith gave up a valuable right to employment because he
believed he would receive retirement benefits.
Mr. Smith files for waiver.
|
We determine that Mr. Smith is without fault in causing the overpayment and recovery
of his overpayment is against equity and good conscience. We may grant the waiver.
Justification: Mr. Smith relinquished a valuable right, which was staying employed because of reliance
upon a notice that he was entitled to retirement benefits.
|
|
Joe Jones, the wage earner, lives in household (HH) #1. His child, Jane Jones, receives
student benefits and lives in HH #2.
Jane withdrew from school and did not report this to change to us. She continued to
receive benefits. Six months later, Jane’s school reported that she had only been
a full-time student for 2 months. We overpaid Jane for 4 months due to her failure
to report that she was not in school.
Jane did not refund the overpayment. All of our attempts to collect from Jane have
been unsuccessful.
Mr. Jones lives in a separate household from his daughter Jane and he is still receiving
benefits. We propose recovery of Jane’s overpayment from Mr. Jones’ benefits. Mr.
Jones is contingently liable for recovery of the overpayment because he is receiving
benefits on the same earnings record as the overpaid person.
Mr. Jones files for waiver.
|
We determine that Mr. Jones is without fault in causing the overpayment and recovery
of Jane’s overpayment from Mr. Jones is against equity and good conscience. We may
grant the waiver.
Justification: Mr. Jones was living in a separate household from Jane at the time of the overpayment
and did not receive the money that resulted in the overpayment.
|
|
We told James Cook that his earnings after retirement would not cause deductions for
months in the same taxable year.
Mr. Cook’s earnings exceeded the annual earnings limits for his first year of entitlement
causing an overpayment.
James files for waiver.
On review of the file, we discover documentation that supported Mr. Cook’s allegation
that we misinformed him about the effect of his earnings on the benefits in his first
year of entitlement.
|
We determine that Mr. Cook is without fault in causing the overpayment. We can deem
recovery of his overpayment against equity and good conscience. We may grant the waiver.
Justification: Mr. Cook relied on incorrect information from an official source within SSA. He believed
the individual provided reliable information about his RSDI benefits.
|
|
Mrs. Power became entitled to retirement benefits in February 2005. Her employer reported
that she earned $18,750 in 2005, which exceeded the AET of $12,000. This caused an
overpayment.
Mrs. Power files for waiver.
Mrs. Power submitted pay stubs showing that she had $11,869 in net earnings (take-home
pay) through September of 2005.
Mrs. Power also had proof that she quit her job September 18th. She quit her job at this time because she was aware of the annual earnings limit
and didn’t want additional earnings to cause her to exceed it. She did not understand
that we look at gross wages.
|
We determine that Mrs. Power is without fault. We can deem recovery of her overpayment
against equity and good conscience. We may grant the waiver.
Justification: Mrs. Power believed that we based the earnings test on take-home pay rather than
gross salary, including extra and in-kind wages.
NOTE: To determine if the beneficiary is at fault, evidence must show that the beneficiary
restricted his or her earnings so that the take-home pay would not exceed the allowable
amount
|
|
Will Greene became entitled to retirement benefits in March 2005.
Mr. Greene’s employer reported earnings of $21,000 for 2005. The AET for 2005 is $12,000
per year for a person who will not reach full retirement age (FRA) during the year.
This caused an overpayment.
Mr. Greene files for waiver.
Mr. Greene states that he believed he could earn the allowable limit ($12,000) in
the months after his entitlement began. He submits proof that he earned $9,000 of
his salary in January and February of 2005.
Subtract the amount earned before the MOE, from the total earnings for the year:
$21,000 total
- 9,000 prior to MOE
$12,000 after MOE
|
We determine that Mr. Greene is without fault and recovery of his overpayment is deemed
against equity and good conscience. We may grant the waiver.
Justification: Mr. Greene reasonably believed that earnings prior to the first month of entitlement
would not count as earnings for deduction purposes.
NOTE: If earnings in the taxable year beginning with the MOE exceeded the annual limit
for the year, we cannot find without fault. Waiver of the overpayment will not apply.
|
|
Margaret Evans has been receiving retirement benefits on her own record and a spouse’s
benefit on her husband’s record since November 2014. In October 2015, when Margaret
started receiving her non-covered pension from the Ohio State Teacher’s Retirement
System (OSTRS) she contacts SSA to report she became entitled. She submits proof of
her pension, we update her retirement record and she receives a notice telling her
we will offset and adjust her monthly benefit. Based on the new benefit listed on
the notice Margaret and her husband decided they could afford to move into an assisted
living apartment facility. They use their entire income from Social Security and OSTRS
to pay for the cost of the assisted living apartment and the care the facility provides.
In May 2016, we receive a RETAP alert on the spouse’s record due to the presence of
WEP data on the Master Beneficiary Record (MBR) for her retirement benefit. We process
the RETAP alert and discovered we overlooked the spouse’s benefit when she reported
her pension and we did not impose the Government Pension Offset (GPO) on the spouse’s
record. The GPO offset creates an overpayment on Mrs. Evans’ spouse’s record.
Upon receipt of the overpayment notice, Mrs. Evans files for waiver.
|
We determine that Mrs. Evans is without fault in causing the overpayment and recovery
of his overpayment is against equity and good conscience. We may grant the waiver.
Justification: Mrs. Evans changed her position for the worse because she relied on her retirement
and spouse payments to move into an assisted living facility based on a noticed that
her benefit had been adjusted as a result of the offset of her OSTRS pension.
|