If you have been injured and are receiving Social Security Disability Insurance, you may have several concerns about how far your money will stretch. Paying a substantial part of what may be a quite modest amount of SSDI is not something that is regarded with particular satisfaction by the recipients. For the most part, Social Security Disability Insurance is not taxed at the federal level.
The Social Security and Supplemental Security Income disability programs are major Federal programs to provide assistance to those with disabilities, which are administered by the Social Security Administration.
Social Security Disability Insurance pays benefits to the beneficiary and certain members of the beneficiary’s family and any supplemental Security Income also pays benefits based on the financial needs of the beneficiary.
There are, however, certain circumstances in which your income can be taxed.
In this article, we will explore those situations.
Requirements for Collecting SSDI
The estimated average Social Security disability benefit amount for a disabled worker receiving SSDI is $1,258 per month as of December 31, 2019. These benefits are based on average lifetime earnings, not on household income or how severe the individual’s disability is.
SSDI only covers total disability. If you are partially disabled, you will not qualify. That means that you are unable to do the work that you did before, that your disability is expected to last a year or more, and you cannot transition to other work.
If you are working and earning more than $1260 per month, you will not qualify for SSDI.
You have to have been working a job that pays into the Social Security Insurance for a period of time. In 2020, the SS formula requires you to get a certain amount of credits to qualify. You are scored one credit for $1410 in wages earned. You need 40 credits ($56,400) with 20 being earned over the past ten years to qualify.
It is clear therefore that the income ceiling for SSDI is fairly low, which is one of the reasons why most people with SSDI benefits aren’t taxed.
Circumstances Where Social Security Disability Benefits Could be Taxable
Most people don’t earn enough to have to pay taxes on SSDI. SSDI benefits range from $800 to $800 per month or $9,600 to $21,600 per year. If you’re filing as an individual and your income is $25,000 to $34,000, about half of your benefits are taxable.
In order to qualify for Social Security disability benefits, you must have worked for a certain period in a job that is covered by Social Security. Generally, you will need 40 credits, 20 of which were earned in the last 10 years, ending with the year in which you became disabled. You must also have a medical condition that meets Social Security’s definition of what amounts to disability.
That’s not to say that you have to give up half of your benefits to taxes. You will be taxed at a very low rate on about 50 percent of what you’re receiving. If you make more than $34,000 as a single person, a larger portion of your benefits can be taxed.
So far as insurances are concerned, Social Security Disability Insurance should not be confused with Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which pays benefits to those who have financial needs regardless of their work history. These two names sound similar, but the qualifications to get the payments and what you might receive are very different.7
What about state income taxes?
There are very few states that tax Social Security benefits.
The Social Security Administration will send you a Form SSA-1099 each year, which includes the total amount of Social Security benefits you received for the year. That number will have to be reported as part of your taxable income, however only a portion of the Social Security benefits is taxable.
If you are a resident of California, where Pisegna & Zimmerman is located for instance, you do not have to pay state income taxes on Social Security disability benefits. Montana, Utah, and Mexico tax some or all SSDI benefits and you need to check the tax status of your SSDI benefit depending upon your jurisidiction.
Other Situations Where Your SSDI Could be Taxed
As was previously mentioned, if you make too much money, you will probably not qualify for SSDI, so if you have things like rental income, investment income, or a pension, you probably make too much money to qualify for SSDI. If you make less than $1710 per month, you may still qualify for SSDI. If you have other income, still qualify for SSDI, and have a combined income that puts you above the $25,000 threshold, your SSDI may be taxed.
If you have more questions about SSDI and taxation, check out the Social Security Disability Insurance website.
Authors:
Source: Pisegna & Zimmerman are based in Sherman Oaks, California and handle social security disability insurance issues as well as personal injury and bankruptcy legal work.
LawFuell's editors select and publish the most relevant and up-to-date information about lawyers and law firms for LawFuel on a daily basis from the most reputable and independent sources available.
That’s good to know there are a lot of specific rules for social security disability. My friend was recently pretty injured, so that’s good to know. I’ll have to recommend that he looks into getting a lawyer to help him know if he qualifies or not so he could get the benefits he needs.
Comments are closed.
Dentons’ Desert Storm Crisis – Claims of Nepotism, Colonialism and Misdeeds Within The Middle East Offices of the World’s Largest Law Firm
“. . our culture does not reflect a scintilla of the image we try to project to our . . pro bono partners, clients and potential recruits.”
Dan Garner* Dentons have been faced with criticism that they have engaged in a raft of cultural, management and ethical issues involving their Mid-East offices in serious claims made by employees or partners of the world’s largest law firm, including alleged anti-American factions and an anti-female culture.
This follows the outrageous allegations reported in law blog Roll on Friday last February when they reported that a former CIA consultant was investigating claims that a former Dentons partner penned an anti-US article which accused Barack Obama of faking Osama Bin Laden’s death in order to declare war on Pakistan, among other claims involving sexism, anti-colonial attitudes and Islamic fundamentalism within the MidEast office.
Kevin Hulbert
The inflammatory opinion ROF piece (“The Fog of War and the Murder of Osama Bin Laden”) calling Bin Laden’s death “cold blooded murder” with highly sarcastic references to the Rambo-style US Navy Seals who did the job. Dentons hired former CIA operative and a firm consultant, Kevin Hulbert, to investigate the issue for them.
Roll on Friday
The credited author of the editorial shares the same name as a commercial partner in one of Dentons' Middle East offices, and the article also states that the author is a lawyer. The Dentons partner, who worked at a Middle East firm when the article was published, denies it is him. RollOnFriday is not naming him because Dentons' investigation is ongoing.RollonFriday, February 2020
Despite claims from Dentons’ management that ‘repeated attempts’ had been made to contact the RollonFriday sources over the ‘untrue and troubling’ allegations, the ‘anonymous senders’ indicated there had been one such attempt and that they had a mountain of evidence “larger than Everest” of names, details, accounts in respect of the operations at the firm’s Qatar and Jordan offices, among others, and other matters to substantiate their various claims of nepotism, profiteering and other matters, denied and disputed by Dentons.
“..the firm has tolerated “appalling and egregious ongoing misbehavior”
‘DentonsMEPartners’
The whistleblowers who wrote the emails to Dentons senior management also claim that a plan to move the Dentons Doha office to Mayer Brown was scuttled when the RollonFriday news regarding activities at the firm broke in February.
Dentons’ Multiple Lawsuits
However, it appears that the anti-Americanism and other issues has done anything but die away.
LawFuel has been provided email correspondence, dated early May, from the same parties who created the ROF Osama Bin Laden ‘storm’, with continued accusations that the firm has tolerated “appalling and egregious ongoing misbehavior” at the firm involving a raft of matters that the authors – the so-called ‘Dentons ME (MiddleEast) Partners‘ – claim includes
a failure to do basic due diligence to hire a ‘proudly outspoken Osama Bin Laden supporter
the firm has been working with a ‘greedy nepotist’ in Qatar and Jordan
the firm has been working with an ‘anti-female polygamist’ and others in Saudi Arabiadisplaying an overall male chauvinist culture in the region
‘good people’ have been terminated while other ‘terrible’ representatives continue in happy employment
An alleged failure to adjust to the cultural and ethnic situation in the Gulf where the office in Dubai is headed by “an old British white man” (Alastair Young) and in Abu Dhabi by another of similar ilk, Ian Dalley, Nick Simpson in Muscat and Middle East Managing Partner Paul Jarvis
the firm operates in the Middle East in purported violation of local labour laws, allegedly violating affiliation and other arrangements.
One of the May emails says “. . misbehavior and low morals flows freely and widely in the DNA and culture of our ‘Holy Verelin Empire’ where we think we can operate above the law across the globe as masters and colonial oppressors.”
The correspondence provided also indicates that the unnamed partners require an explanation and apology for the alleged “falsehoods” carried in articles in both The American Lawyer and The Lawyer publications relating to the practices of Dentons in the Middle East.
Dentons said the unnamed partner denied having written the piece, which was written nine years ago, but there are major rumblings from the same offices from an alleged group of disgruntled Dentons employees/partners who have decried the onset of multiple lawsuits against the firm that could have been avoided by respecting local, Middle East laws and the former lawyers and employees of the firm in that region.
Apart from the issues catalogued (above) there have been serious allegations made about financial mismanagement, wrongdoing, poor leadership and a misuse of resources in defending lawsuits that could properly be avoided. The firm, says the memo from apparent employees and/or partners in the Middle East, epitomises the “culture of colonialism” that the firm itself has decried (see below).
Who Are DentonsMEPartners?
LawFuel is unable to report whether the internal communications signed as “DentonsMEPartners” are Dentons partners or employees. Attempts to do so have not clarified the matter but the correspondence and the volume of material relating to specific individuals and the claims about them is detailed, as it is distrubing.
The allegations are multiple and serious and the anonymity of the ‘DentonsMEPartners’ is explained in an email dated April 11 2020 thus
DentonsMEPartners email – 11 April 2020
Dentons ‘Ad Hominem Response’
The ‘ME Partners’ decry the so-called ad hominem response from management that targets their anonymity but, they say, “fails to even acknowledge any of the concerns we raise” and criticise the attitude taken by the firm that ‘epitomises the culture of colonialism’ in a country that is ethnically and culturally Arabic.
Reference is also made to the recent ublicity concerning a USD32 million malpractice judgment against Dentons, which is being appealed, and involving the American office’s representation of RevoLaze, the adversary of the Canadian office’s client. Dentons’ Global Chief Legal Officer John Koski wrote to defend the firm’s Swiss verein structure, an effort described by the ME group via email dated March 15 as “tone deaf and lacking in sincerity.”
The same email castigates the global firm management and its “media machine” for celebrating a raft of achievements including Day of Understanding,
The Dentons Concerns
The emails reference senior Dentons management including John Koski, but also others.
Elliott Portnoy
They refer to Elliott Portnoy, Joe Andrews, Jeremy Cohen “and the entire global management board” who they stringently criticize for the management of the firm and its practices in the Middle East offices.
They allege that those who attempt to raise issues “is retaliated against in the most vile, illegal and vindictive manner that is contrary to local law, the culture we purport to have and the Global Code of Conduct.”
This, they say, is the reason for their anonymity.
The ‘Targets’ of the Criticism
The parties targeted by the ME Partners communications include those about whom whistleblowing letters have previously been written.
The perpetrators of various alleged transgressions have been permitted to continue “unchecked” at Dentons because they are also profitable rainmakers.
“. . why are the last female and American lawyers no longer working in Riyadh shortly after the complaints were raised?”
Reference is made to the “flawed article” in The Lawyer by Joe Andrews which dealt with the ‘colonial’ manner in which international law firms act, which includes the fact that only a handful of offices do high value work and others are essentially regarded as branch offices.
They reference the lawsuit for tens of millions of dollars taken by Kampala Associated Advocates (KAA) in Uganda when, they say, the firm acted like “raiding and pillaging” “brutal settlers”. The merger did not ultimately proceed.
The criticism of The Lawyer article (above) is specifically selected for brutal criticism, noting that Dentons have transcended the previous “outdated notion that it is still effective for a law firm to treat its own talent in a hierarchical, parochial, colonial and unequal way”.
They allege that the matters raised by Joe Andrews is belied by the firm’s actions and modus operandi in the Middle East, where it operates “in the most imperalistic, cavalier and condescending manner”.
For the Dentons Defence
The response to the email came from John Koski (left) who took issue with the fact that the alleged firm ‘partners’ remained anonymous and should refer their issues via the Dentons Code of Conduct.
Dentons places particularly high expectations upon its partners, he wrote in any email dated April 7 2020 to the ‘anonymous senders’.
The lengthy email labored the point about the firm’s Code of Conduct but failed to address the specifics made in the various allegations from the alleged partners.
As a result, the concerned group then emailed the firm’s UK and Middle East Chief Executive Jeremy Cohen (right) on March 31, noting that he had not afforded them a response, nor an apology to the story published by RollonFriday and saying “. . our Firm’s spokesperson created the false and disparaging narrative that we are ‘troublemakers’ and have not engaged with you despite “repeated attempts”.
On the contrary, the record shows unequivocally that it is you and the team copied here who have refused to engage and communicate,” they wrote disparaging the “laughable” Koski response (below) as well as saying the Mid-East office had “never seen” the firm’s global Code of Conduct.
The March email says the ‘concerned partners’ have had enough of the “waffling, dithering vacillation” of the firm.
“We have had enough of it,” they say. “. . our culture does not reflect a scintilla of the image we try to project to our . . pro bono partners, clients and potential recruits.”
The Dentons’ Issues Remain
The issues raised by DentonsMEPartners appear to remain as the firm grapples with the catalog of alleged issues, including the Osama bin Laden supporter who remains in the firm along with the party in the other offices who they claim attempted to move two offices from Dentons to Mayer Brown.
The other cultural and ethical issues raised by the detailed corrrespondence reflects a fervent desire to hold Dentons management to account. Whether it responds to their satisfaction is an issue that remains at large.
Read More on LawFuel – Providing Law Firm News Since 2001
LawFuel editors review and publish the best and latest news on law firm develoopments and about lawyers.
3 thoughts on “Dentons’ Desert Storm Crisis – Claims of Nepotism, Colonialism and Misdeeds Within The Middle East Offices of the World’s Largest Law Firm”
Show Comments
3 thoughts on “Dentons’ Desert Storm Crisis – Claims of Nepotism, Colonialism and Misdeeds Within The Middle East Offices of the World’s Largest Law Firm”
How does the largest law firm in the world allow something like this to happen. I read that Fog of War article, The Dentons partner definitely wrote it. There is nobody else by that (unique) name who is also a barrister. Please keep us updated Lawfuel! This has major implications for clients who pay their invoices to Dentons. By doing so are clients knowingly supporting terrorism???
Earfanbutt
This is well known in the Middle East and Africa legal community
Anonymous
Yah, all of the articles on the tie up with Kampala Associated Advocates in the legal media suddenly stopped. Now if you go to Dentons website for Uganda the tie up was actually with Kyagaba and Otatiina. When you look at Kyagaba’s work history and Otatiina’s work history, they were both lawyers at Kampala Associated Advocates before joining Dentons. Denton’s lost a lot of respect in Uganda after this incident and the legal community was appalled.
That’s good to know there are a lot of specific rules for social security disability. My friend was recently pretty injured, so that’s good to know. I’ll have to recommend that he looks into getting a lawyer to help him know if he qualifies or not so he could get the benefits he needs.