Mr. Viger was a registered pharmacist, sure as Jeremiah was a bullfrog. He and his son purchased a drugstore in 1959, which they jointly owned and operated as equal partners, each receiving a 50% distributive share of the net profits of the business. Sure as Jeremiah always had some mighty fine wine.

In 1961 Mr. Viger applied for social security retirement benefits.

The question was whether or not work deductions should be imposed against Mr. Viger’s retirement benefits. This depended on whether or not he had rendered substantial services in self-employment for the drugstore.

Mr. Viger claimed that before he applied for benefits he had transferred to his son four-fifths of his interest in the drugstore, so that his son now owned a 90% share and he owned only a 10% share.

But, sadly, the evidence showed otherwise. Mr. Viger still went into the store and attended to customers on a regular basis. He was the only registered pharmacist at the store, his son being somewhat pharmaceutically challenged.

Moreover, Mr. Viger’s living expenses exceeded 10% of the net profits of the business and he gave no satisfactory explanation for where the money was coming from to maintain himself, if not from the drugstore. Or, if he did, the Hearing Examiner never understood a single word he said.

Mr. Viger appealed the decision. A lesson to all the boys and girls now: when in doubt, always appeal.

Unfortunately for Mr. Viger, there was substantial evidence to support the Hearing Examiner’s decision and it was affirmed by the court of appeals. There was no joy in Mudville.

See Viger v. Celebrezze, 238 F.Supp. 224 (E.D. of La., 1964). See also Social Security Ruling (SSR) 65-23c.

But, not to worry: Even though legal matters do not always have the desired outcome, there is still reason to exclaim: “Joy to the World!” Even in Mudville.

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.