Mr. Stravropolous filed for social security retirement benefits on Mach 2nd, 1957. In his application he stated that he was born in 1889 and that he was self-employed but did not expect to have net earnings above the amount that would required work deductions to be imposed against his social security benefits. At the time this amount of earnings was $1,200 in any given year.

His benefits were initially $82.50 per month but were increased to $88.50 per month in 1958. He had purchased a rooming house which he managed and from which he derived income from self-employment. However, he alleged that in 1959 he had sold this business to his wife.

But social security found that this was a mere paper transaction in order to avoid work deductions being imposed against his retirement benefits. During the years 1959 and thereafter, his wife had earned substantial income doing embroidery work. It was unlikely she was also working at the boarding house for a significant number of hours. Moreover, the tenants testified that they paid rent to either Mr. Stravropolous or his wife and that Mr. Stravlopolous often perform services around the rooming house. Whereas Mr. Stravropolous had testified that he opened a bank account for the purpose of completing the sale of the rooming house business to his wife, bank records showed that the account had been opened two years earlier.

Mr. Stravropolous appealed. The only question for the federal court to determine was whether the hearing examiner’s decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record. This is a difficult burden to meet. After examining the record, the Court concluded that, not only was there substantial evidence to support the hearing examiner’s decision, that in fact it was hard to see how he could have reached any other conclusion on the facts in the record.

Held: Summary judgment was granted for the defendants and work deductions were imposed against Plaintiff’s social security benefits.
S
See Stravropolous v. Ribicoff, U.S.D.C., S.D.N.Y., 61 Civ. No. 929 (3/1/62)(CCH U.I.R. Fed. Par. 14,273). See also Social Security Ruling (SSR) 64-38c.

This material should not be construed as legal advice for any particular fact situation, but is intended for general informational purposes only. For advice specific to any individual situation, an experienced attorney should be contacted.