Opinion
Docket No. 006306-2013
11-04-2013
Re: Schendallar et al. v. Director, Division of Taxation
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT APPROVAL OF
THE TAX COURT COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS
Mala Sundar
JUDGE
BY ELECTRONIC MAIL
Errol & Mujgan Schendallar, Pro-Se
13 Tara Drive
Matawan, New Jersey 07747
Michelline Capistrano Foster, D.A.G.
25 Market Street
P.O. Box 106
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0106
Dear Mr. Schendallar and Deputy Attorney General Foster:
This is the court's opinion with respect to plaintiffs' complaint seeking reversal of the denial of their Property Tax Reimbursement ("PTR") for tax year 2011 by defendant ("Taxation"). The denial was based upon Taxation's determination that plaintiffs' earnings for tax year 2011 exceeded the $70,000 annual income threshold, therefore they did not qualify to receive a PTR. Plaintiffs argue that their income was below the threshold because the federal social security disability ("SSD") benefits check received in 2011 undisputedly included benefits attributable to and payable for 2009 and 2010, and also because they repaid plaintiff's employer's disability insurance plan which had paid them disability benefits in 2009 to 2011.
Upon the court's inquiry into status of plaintiffs' 2010 PTR claim, Taxation conceded that it had granted the same, but contended that upon review (after the court's inquiry), the payment was erroneous because for that year plaintiff, Mr. Schendallar, was not an eligible claimant because he was not a "disabled person" as defined by the PTR statute, which required that he be receiving federal SSD benefits in 2010. Taxation also argued that if this court were to allocate the SSD benefits paid in 2011 to earlier years, its payment of the 2010 PTR was still erroneous because the allocated SSD benefits to 2010 would increase the 2010 income over the $70,000 threshold by $161, thus, the court should "direct" Mr. Schendallar repay the 2010 PTR.
Plaintiff spouse is a party to the litigation by virtue of filing joint income tax returns and applying for the PTR with plaintiff husband Errol Schendallar. The opinion will refer only to plaintiff Mr. Schendallar because the SSD benefits at issue here were paid only to him due to his disability.
In response to the court's further inquiry as to why Taxation had agreed to an allocation of SSD benefits for a year prior to the year of receipt in another case before another Tax Court judge dealing with the issue of the income limitation for PTR purposes, Taxation responded that the concession in that case was erroneous, thus, it is not bound by an unauthorized act of its agent, and in any event, that was not the basis for the court's decision (which was in its favor).
The court finds based upon the facts in this matter, that it will not direct plaintiffs to return the 2010 PTR. The court also finds that based on the plain language of the PTR statute, that all income received and accrued in a calendar year should be counted towards the income eligibility limit, therefore, Taxation properly included the entire amount of the SSD benefits received by Mr. Schendallar in 2011 although a portion of the same was attributable to 2009 and 2010. Therefore, Taxation's final determination denying plaintiffs' claim for a PTR for tax year 2011 is affirmed. FACTS
1. Background
Plaintiffs are New Jersey residents. Mr. Schendallar, became disabled August 26, 2008. On March 19, 2010, he entered into an agreement with Hartford Insurance Company ("Hartford") which provided him long term disability ("LTD") benefits pursuant to his employer's health insurance coverage. The agreement stated that Mr. Schendallar had "applied for Other Income Benefits" and that a decision in that regard was pending. Mr. Schendallar opted to receive monthly LTD benefits without an offset for estimated other income benefits, and agreed to refund Hartford if he received more in "other income benefits" than the LTD benefits.
For tax year 2009, Hartford issued a Form W-2 (information return of salaries and wages) showing $34,229.87 as wage income paid to Mr. Schendallar. For tax year 2010, the W-2 showed wage income of $30,351.72.
By a Notice of Decision dated January 11, 2011, the Administrative Law Judge for the Social Security Administration ("SSA") advised Mr. Schendallar that she issued "a favorable decision" after reviewing the "facts" of his "case."
On March 27, 2011, the SSA (Retirement, Survivors, and Disability Insurance) issued a Notice of Award to Mr. Schendallar. The Notice advised him that the SSA had found that he "became disabled" on August 26, 2008, and his "first month of entitlement to" SSD benefits was February 2009. The Notice also advised him that he would receive an amount of $42,094.15 in February 2011, which represented monies "due" for the period February 2009 through and including January 2011. After this, he would receive $2,229 for the month of February 2011 (payable March 2011) and thereafter, this amount each month.
Although the SSA determined that Mr. Schendallar became disabled August 26, 2008, he also had a waiting period of "5 full calendar months in a row" before he could be entitled to disability benefits.
Sometime in 2012, the SSA issued an information return, Form SSA-1099-SM showing that it had paid a total of $79,723.40 as SSD benefits to Mr. Schendallar in tax year 2011. This included the amounts actually paid to Mr. Schendallar ($76,394); Medicare premiums deducted ($1,269.40); and attorney fees ($2,060). The form also indicated that the amount paid to Mr. Schendallar in 2011 represented $30,485 "for 2010" and $23,450 "for 2009."
Although the March 2011 Notice of Award stated that the February 2009 through January 2011 payment was $42,094.15, the Form 1099 showed that the total payments for the calendar years 2009 and 2010 was $53,935.
For tax year 2011, Hartford issued a Form W-2 showing wage income of $6,576.22 (indicating the nature of the payment as "third party sick pay") to Mr. Schendallar.
By three separate checks dated May 25, 2011, October 25, 2011, and December 29, 2011, Mr. Schendallar paid Hartford a total of $21,500. He also he paid $2,000 to the attorney representing him in the SSA matter by check of October 25, 2011.
2. PTR Applications
For tax year 2010, plaintiffs filed a PTR application (meant for residents who had not filed a PTR application for tax year 2009) on or about July 27, 2011. On the accompanying worksheet, Mr. Schendallar included $35,883 as wage income for tax year 2009 (noting the same as "LTD"). He showed $32,784 as wage income for tax year 2010 (which was more than the 2010 W-2 issued by Hartford showing $30,351.72). He testified that the income was the amounts received as LTD from Hartford, and that he had also reported the same as taxable income on his federal and New Jersey personal income tax returns for each tax year. On the PTR application, plaintiffs indicated that as of December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2010, Mr. Schendallar was receiving federal social security disability benefits. Also included with the 2010 PTR application was the January 11, 2011 Notice of Decision by the SSA.
For tax year 2011, plaintiffs filed a timely PTR application on or about May 31, 2012. Mr. Schendallar once again checked the box indicating that as of December 31, 2011 he was receiving federal SSD benefits. He showed the total income for 2011 as zero and sought $500.20 as the PTR. On the attached worksheet, he showed zero amount as the social security benefits (including Medicare Part B premiums), and $6,577 as wage income (the amount reported on the 2011 W-2 by Hartford as third party sick pay). He also deducted capital losses ($3,000) and rental losses ($20,838) to arrive at a net income of zero.
3. Administrative Proceedings
On September 19, 2012, Taxation responded to Mr. Schendallar's correspondence as to his 2010 and 2011 PTR applications. The letter stated that to be eligible for PTR, an applicant must have been receiving federal SSD benefits as of December 31, 2009 and/or 2010, and if the applicant was "receiving Federal [SSD] benefits [he or she] must have continued to receive benefits through December 31, 2011." Since Mr. Schendallar's Medicare card indicated a February 2011 effective date, Taxation asked for proof of receipt of the SSD benefits as of December 31, 2009 and/or December 31, 2010. Specifically, Taxation requested a copy of the Notice of Award from the SSA which Notice had to "state" that Mr. Schendallar was "eligible to receive disability benefits and the date that [he was] eligible to start receiving disability benefits."
It appears that thereafter, Mr. Schendallar provided the requested information, namely, the SSA's award of the benefits.
Subsequently, on November 29, 2012, Taxation sent Mr. Schendallar a letter but this time referencing only his 2011 PTR application. The letter stated that Mr. Schendallar's 2011 income exceeded the $70,000 threshold set by the annual State budget as the qualifying income for 2011 PTRs. Taxation therefore denied plaintiffs' PTR application for 2011. There was no reference to Mr. Schendallar's 2010 PTR application or Taxation's final determination in that regard.
Mr. Schendallar protested Taxation's denial by his letter of December 5, 2012. He stated that he "absolutely" disagreed with it and wished to pursue a further appeal in this regard.
After an administrative conference, Taxation issued a final determination April 15, 2013 upholding the denial. Taxation noted that Mr. Schendallar had failed to include the SSD benefits on his PTR worksheet, and further that he improperly netted the capital loss and rental loss against the other reported income. Taxation therefore added back the $79,723.40 SSD benefits on grounds "income is to be reported in the year in which it is received" to the other items of income previously reported on the PTR worksheet, and further, did not allow the total income to be reduced by the capital or rental losses. This provided a total income of $108,480.40 which thus exceeded the $70,000 threshold.
Taxation introduced its Conference Report of April 15, 2013 as evidence of the administrative proceedings. It noted the rebate period as being "1/1/2011 - 12/31/2010." It also noted the rebate "denial date" as September 19, 2012 even though on that date Taxation had merely sought additional information.
This appeal followed. Mr. Schendallar argued that (i) the SSD benefits are not taxable, therefore, not includible; (ii) the repayments he made to Hartford due to receipt of the SSD benefits should offset the total SSD benefits received in 2011; and (iii) the 2009 and 2010 SSD benefits should not be counted for purposes of the $70,000 income threshold because they represent SSD benefits for those prior years. Taxation argued that the PTR law requires consideration of only gross income without any offsets, and since it is undisputed that Mr. Schendallar's gross income for 2011 exceeded $70,000, its denial of the 2011 PTR was proper.
After oral argument, the court inquired the parties for a clarification of the following two issues as follows:
(1) the pleadings indicate that plaintiff requested a property tax reimbursement for tax years 2010 and 2011, yet [Taxation's] final determination addressed only tax year 2011. What was Taxation's final determination as to tax year 2010? Was such determination conveyed to plaintiff?After a telephonic conference in this regard, and at Taxation's request, the court provided both parties an opportunity to brief the issues raised by the sought-for clarification.
(2) In another matter Hansen v. Director, Dkt No. 012212-2011, [Taxation] agreed with the taxpayers that prior years "underpayments" by the [SSA] should not be counted as "income" for tax year 2009, for purposes of the income threshold (copy of the decision is attached). How and why does [Taxation's] agreement in the Hansen matter reconcile with its current position that Mr. Schendallar's federal SSA benefits for prior years 2009 and 2010 are includable as income for 2011 for purposes of the income eligibility criteria?
Taxation then stated that pursuant to the court's query, it had "reviewed" Mr. Schendallar's 2010 PTR application, and found that it had granted and paid a PTR of $202.42 on or about August 9, 2011. Taxation noted that "upon further review" it came to its "attention" that Mr. Schendallar was ineligible for a 2010 PTR because he did not qualify as to age nor was he "actually receiving [SSD] benefits in 2009 and 2010." It further noted that if this court were to adopt an allocation of the SSD benefits to prior years, then, the income for 2010 was $70,161, which was higher than the income limit for PTR purposes. It therefore requested this court to direct plaintiffs to return the $202.42 to Taxation pursuant to the PTR statute.
As to the second point, Taxation argued that the allocation of SSA benefits in Hansen was an error, and Taxation should not be bound by this error since its employee was unauthorized to "make such an agreement or allocation." Taxation conceded that it did not correct or dispute the taxpayer's argument that Taxation had initially incorrectly computed the social security benefits when it had included a prior year's benefits. Taxation argued that since the court in Hansen had found that the taxpayers' income limit had exceeded $70,000 regardless of the allocation, that case has no bearing here, and that by disallowing Mr. Schedallar's PTR for 2011, Taxation was "not perpetuating the allocation error made in" Hansen.
Mr. Schendallar's response to the court's query and Taxation's brief was that Taxation was simply regurgitating its initial oral arguments; that he was receiving SSA benefits from the federal government when he had filed his 2010 PTR application in July 2011; and that Taxation was undisputedly in possession of all the relevant documents when it made its determination to deem him qualified for the 2010 PTR. LAW AND ANALYSIS
The PTR program is authorized by N.J.S.A. 54:4-8.67 (hereinafter the "PTR statute") to provide local property tax relief to seniors and other qualified property owners. The PTR is available to a person who (1) is 65 or older, or a disabled person; (2) is the owner of a homestead; (3) "has an annual income of $80,000 or less in tax year 2009;" (4) has owned the homestead for at least three years prior to the date for which a homestead PTR application is made, but paid property taxes or at least ten consecutive years. Ibid. (defining the term "eligible applicant"). For tax years 2010 and 2011, the "annual income" limit was $70,000 as decided by the Legislature in its law passing the annual budgets (i.e., the annual Appropriations laws).
All of the above conditions must exist as of December 31 of the tax year for which the property tax reimbursement is sought. N.J.S.A. 54:4-8.70 (a PTR application which is filed in the "year following the year for which" the PTR is claimed, must "reflect the prerequisites for a [PTR] on December 31 of the tax year for which the claim is being made"). Once a person meets all of the conditions, that is, becomes an "eligible claimant," he or she is entitled to PTR after the year in which he or she so qualifies. See N.J.S.A. 54:4-8.69 (PTR receivable in the year subsequent to the "base year"). The "base year" is tax year 1997 or the "tax year in which the person first becomes an eligible claimant." Ibid.
It is undisputed that plaintiffs are New Jersey residents and own the residence on which they paid property taxes. There is no issue regarding the period of ownership or of tax payment. It is also undisputed that neither plaintiff was 65 or over for tax years 2010 or 2011. This then leaves the issue of annual income, and Mr. Schendallar's status as a disabled person.
A "disabled person" is defined as "an individual receiving monetary payments pursuant to Title II of the federal Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. s.401 et seq.) on December 31 . . . in all or any part of the year for which a [PTR] . . . is claimed." N.J.S.A. 54:4-8.67. Although Mr. Schendallar was receiving LTD benefits in 2009 to 2011, those payments were from Hartford, not the SSA. The SSA paid him a lumpsum only in 2011, thus, Mr. Schendallar was receiving SSD benefits only in 2011.
Taxation however paid Mr. Schendallar the 2010 PTR. It points out that this was in error, and that it can recoup the same under N.J.S.A. 54:4-8.70. The last sentence of that statute provides:
If an eligible claimant receives an additional homestead property tax reimbursement to which the claimant was not entitled or greater than the reimbursement to which the claimant was entitled, the director may, inTaxation states that based on the above language, this court should "direct" Mr. Schendallar to repay the 2010 PTR. There are few problems with this argument.
addition to all other available legal remedies, offset such amount against a gross income tax refund or amount due pursuant to P. L. 1990, c. 61 [N.J.S.A. 54:4-8.57 et seq].
First, in order for the statute to apply, Mr. Schendallar should be an "eligible claimant." Taxation maintains that he is not because he was not receiving federal SSD benefits in 2010. If so, the statute does not apply.
Second, Taxation fails to point out to any law or precedent that deems a pending litigation for another tax year (here 2011) as an "available legal remed[y]" for purposes of N.J.S.A. 54:4-8.70. Asking the court to direct Mr. Schendallar repay the 2010 PTR is especially egregious when Taxation failed to mention Mr. Schendallar's ineligibility for a 2010 PTR at any time during the entire administrative proceedings; reviewed the 2010 PTR only after this court made an inquiry of the status of the same; and only then decided it was erroneous.
Taxation's September 12, 2012 letter informed Mr. Schendallar that to qualify for a PTR for tax year 2010, he should have been receiving SSD benefits as of December 31, 2009; and to qualify for a 2011 PTR, he should have been receiving SSD benefits as of December 31, 2010. If so, then Mr. Schendallar was not eligible as a disabled person even in 2011 because he did not receive any SSD benefits in 2010. Taxation's recital of the eligibility criteria is incorrect because under the PTR statute, a claimant should have been receiving SSD benefits in all or any part of "the year for which a homestead property tax reimbursement under this act is claimed," N.J.S.A. 54:4-8.67. Thus, Mr. Schendallar should have been receiving SSA benefits in 2010 to qualify for a 2010 PTR. Similarly, he should have been receiving SSA benefits in 2011 to qualify for a 2011 PTR.
The court therefore finds no credible basis for Taxation's claim that this court must order Mr. Schendallar a return of the 2010 PTR.
As to the 2011 PTR, the court finds that Taxation's denial was proper. While it is true that the SSD benefits received by Mr. Schendallar in 2011 included amounts for 2009 and 2010, there is no support in the plain language of the PTR statute for allocating the amounts to the prior years for purposes of determining the annual income limits.
First, the term "income" for purposes of the annual income limit under the PTR statute, is defined as that which is "determined pursuant to" another statute, N.J.S.A. 30:4D-20 et seq. This latter statute establishes a program called the "Pharmaceutical Assistance to the Aged and Disabled" ("PAAD"). Under the PAAD law, all income, taxable or non-taxable, is generally considered for purposes of determining/computing the income limitation. See N.J.A.C. 8:83-6.2(c)(1) ("all income, taxable and nontaxable, is to be included"). SSD benefits are included as income. N.J.A.C. 8:83-6.2(c)(1)(i) ("social security benefits paid to" an applicant is included as income). The instructions accompanying the PTR application's worksheet also make it clear that "all income . . . received during the year, including income which" the applicant is not "required to report on [his] New Jersey income tax return" must be counted.
Similar to the PTR laws, the PAAD law also grants benefits to New Jersey residents, who are either recipients of disability insurance benefits under the SSA laws, or are 65 or older, and "whose" annual income is less than certain dollar amounts. N.J.S.A. 30:4D-21.
Thus, the SSD benefits are includible under the PTR statute for purposes of determining the income limits. This is despite the fact that they are excluded from being taxed under the New Jersey gross income tax statute.
N.J.S.A. 54A:6-2 excludes "[a]ll payments received under the Federal Social Security Act, whether they be regular[] monthly benefits or lump sum death benefits" from gross income tax.
Second, no deductions or offsets are generally permitted in determining the annual income limit. See N.J.A.C. 8:83-6.2(c)(1) (income is considered on a "gross" basis, i.e., without any deduction for losses or expenses, unless specifically provided); N.J.A.C. 8:83-6.2(k) ("Medical or other expenses are not considered or deducted from gross income for PAAD eligibility purposes").
The instructions accompanying the PTR application's worksheet reproduces the examples of the "sources" of income includible under PAAD and thus, under the PTR statute, which clearly states that income is reportable as "gross amounts." They also clearly state that losses in one category cannot offset income from another category (thus, for example, rental losses cannot offset SSA benefits), and if there is a "net loss in any category" the applicant should not make any "entry on that line."
Therefore, Mr. Schendallar cannot include the net rental and capital losses on his PTR applications. Further, Mr. Schendallar cannot offset the $21,500 repaid by him to Hartford to reduce the SSA benefits for purposes of determining the annual income limit of $70,000.
Third, the plain language of the definitions in the PTR statute do not permit an allocation of the SSD benefits received in one year to prior years, for purposes of computing the income limit amount. As noted above, the PTR statute requires, among others, that a homeowner "has an annual income" of $70,000 or less, "in" a particular "tax year." It also defines "tax year" to "mean the calendar year in which income is received or accrued." N.J.S.A. 54:4-8.67. Taxation's instructions accompanying the PTR application's worksheet states that "all income . . . received during the year" must be counted (emphasis added). See also N.J.A.C. 8:83-2.1 (interpreting the term "annual income" under the PAAD laws to mean "income from whatever source derived, actually received or anticipated").
Additionally, the terms "received or accrued" (used in the definition of "tax year" for PTR purposes), generally refer to methods of accounting for reporting income for tax purposes. Cash-basis taxpayers report income in the year actually or constructively received. Du Bois v. Director, Div. of Taxation, 4 N.J. Tax 11, 19 (Tax 1981), aff'd, 6 N.J. Tax 249 (App. Div. 1982), aff'd, 95 N.J. 234 (1983). Under the accrual method, "income is recognized when all events have occurred which fix the taxpayer's right to the income and the amount thereof is determinable with reasonable accuracy . . . even though it is received in a later year." 4 N.J. Tax at 20. Since the SSD benefits were actually received in 2011, and further, since the SSA's determination that Mr. Schendallar was entitled to SSA disability benefits occurred only in 2011, he would have "received or accrued" those benefits only in 2011.
L. 2001 c. 251 amended the definition of "tax year" in the PTR statute by including the words "and it means the calendar year in which income is received or accrued." There was no reasoning for the addition, other than to note that the definition of tax year "which currently only applies to calendar years in which property taxes are paid" was being amended "to also apply to calendar years in which income is received or accrued . . ." Assembly Approp. Comm., Statement to Assembly Comm. Substitute for Assembly Nos. 3082 and 1338 (May 3, 2001).
Similar treatment is provided for federal income tax purposes. Thus, lumpsum payments of SSD benefits which includes benefits for prior years must be included as income in the year received unless a special election is made by the taxpayer. See I.R.C. §86(e). See also 1983-2 C.B. 326 (the "elective, special-rule for taxpayers who receive lump-sum payments . . . was determined to be necessary because in some situations involving lump-sum payments of benefits attributable to prior years, the general income-averaging rules may not provide adequate relief" and the amendment allowing the special election "intends that when lump-sum payments are made, the [SSA] will notify the recipients thereof of the taxable years to which the payments are attributable") (reproducing Sen. Report 98-21 to the Social Security Act Amendments of 1983) (March 1983)).
All these definitions, when read together as they must, means that a claimant cannot have more than $70,000 income in the calendar year for which the PTR is being claimed, not for the calendar year for which the PTR is claimed. This means that Mr. Schendallar should have "received or accrued" $70,000 or less in 2011 (and as of December 31, 2011) to be eligible for the 2011 PTR.
The above conclusion is also supported by legislative history. Prior law had defined a disabled person as one "receiving or having qualified to receive" payments under the Social Security Act; and an eligible claimant as, among others, one "qualified to receive PAAD benefits, or was qualified in the previous tax year to receive PAAD benefits but who is not so PAAD qualified in the current year." L. 1997, c. 348. The above language was deleted, and the income eligibility criteria was added. See Assembly No. 3 (Third Reprint, approved Jan. 14, 1998) (noting that these changes were pursuant to pursuant to the Assembly Amendments adopted in accordance with the Governor's recommendation of January 12, 1998). This supports the conclusion that it is the receipt of payments from the SSA, and the possession of an annual income of a certain dollar amount, that determines eligibility for PTR. Therefore, Taxation properly included the entire amount of the SSD benefits received in 2011 for determining the annual income limit of $70,000 for 2011.
In this connection, Taxation's exclusion of a prior year's SSD benefits in Hansen, however troublesome, cannot be used to estop its denial of PTR in this case. A taxpayer is bound by the law. Taxation's employees cannot waive the requirements of the PTR law when enforcing the same. See generally Black Whale, Inc. v. Director, Div. of Taxation, 15 N.J. Tax 338 (Tax 1995). Therefore, Taxation's denial of the 2011 PTR is not estopped.
In this connection, Taxation provided no reason or justification for mechanically asserting that the auditor in the Hansen matter was unauthorized to agree to an allocation. Further, its reliance upon the "lack-of-authority" defense is questionable when it concedes that it never disputed the allocation even during oral argument of the matter.
--------
It is unfortunate that the timing of payment of the SSD benefits in a lumpsum can result in a denial of the PTR because the amount could exceed the annual income limit. However, the timing of the receipt of the payment is the consequence of the SSA laws which require a finding of disability, which can cause passage of time. It is this court's obligation however to interpret our Legislature's intention, which here, is found in the plain language of the PTR statute to require annual income be determined on the amount received or accrued in the calendar year for which the PTR is being sought. The court is hard-pressed to graft allowances for allocation of prior year's SSD benefits into the PTR statute's definition of "annual income" and "tax year" when doing so could amount to legislating. See e.g. MacMillan v. Director, Div. of Taxation, 180 N.J. Super. 175, 177 (App. Div. 1981) (empathizing with the Tax Court's attempt to liberally construe the PTR statute but disagreeing that this could be used to expand the plain meaning of the statute and provide PTR benefits "no matter how confident we are of what the Legislature would do if it were to reconsider today"), affd, 89 N.J. 216 (1982); Anderson v. Director, Div. of Taxation, 24 N.J. Tax 141, 157 (Tax 2008) (denying PTR for a home owner who did not meet the three-year ownership requirement in her current residence which she had exchanged for her prior residence due to potential condemnation, and in which prior residence she had resided for 10 years, noting that "[t]his is a case in which the law as written and my authority as a judge to interpret that law compel a result which is, in my judgment, inequitable. The power to change the result [however] rests with the Legislature . . . "). CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, Taxation's final determination denying the 2011 PTR is affirmed.
Very truly yours,
Mala Sundar, J.T.C.