20 C.F.R. § 416.1140

The presumed value rule

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) How we apply the presumed value rule. (1) When you receive in-kind support and maintenance and the one-third reduction rule does not apply, we use the presumed value rule. Instead of determining the actual dollar value of any shelter you receive, we presume that it is worth a maximum value. This maximum value is one-third of your Federal benefit rate plus the amount of the general income exclusion described in § 416.1124(c)(12).

(2) The presumed value rule allows you to show that your in-kind support and maintenance is not equal to the presumed value. We will not use the presumed value if you show us that—

(i) The current market value of any shelter you receive, minus any payment you make for it, is lower than the presumed value; or

(ii) The actual amount someone else pays for your shelter is lower than the presumed value.

(b) How we determine the amount of your ISM under the presumed value rule. (1) If you choose not to question the use of the presumed value, or if the presumed value is less than the actual value of the shelter you receive, we use the presumed value to figure your ISM.

(2) If you show us, as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, that the presumed value is higher than the actual value of the shelter you receive, we use the actual amount to figure your ISM.

[89 FR 21210, Mar. 27, 2024]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 17 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Madgey Jackson v. Richard Schweiker , Secretary of Health and Human Services

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Madgey Jackson v. Richard Schweiker , Secretary of Health and Human Services (1982) ca7 · cites it 2× “” 20 C.F.R. § 416.1140 (a) (1981). The one-third reduction rule is used when the recipient lives in another’s household and receives both food and shelter.”

Danielle Gordon v. Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services (1995) ca2 · cites it 2× “20 C.F.R. § 416.1140 . This presumption can be rebutted by showing that the current market value of the in-kind support minus any payment made for it by the recipient, or the actual amount paid by someone else for the recipient, is lower than the presumed value.”

Carol G. Ellis v. Kenneth Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security (1998) ca2 · cites it 2× “See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1140 (describing the “presumed [maximum] value rule”).”

Beckless v. Heckler (1985) ilnd “23(a) and (b) and has filed an amended motion for class certification which defines the class as follows: All Supplemental Security Income (SSI) applicants who have resided or are residing in Illinois or Wisconsin, whose applications are denied or initial benefits are reduced…”

Glasgold v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (1982) nyed “20 CFR § 416.1140 -.1141 (1981). Plaintiffs’ main objection to the presumed value rule relies on the premise that in practice the one-third presumption becomes irrebuttable.”

Ford v. Shalala (1999) nyed “See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1140 (a). The third method of in-kind valuation automatically excludes the entire value of in-kind support and maintenance to claimants who reside in one of five specific living arrangements: those residing in (1) a non-profit retirement home, (2) a public…”

Ruppert v. Bowen (1989) ca2 “20 C.F.R. § 416.1140 . When the PMV rule is used, however, the recipient has the opportunity to prove that the actual value of the support is less than its presumed value.”

Bloodsaw v. Sullivan (1992) paed · cites it 7× “In his Report and Recommendation the Magistrate Judge found that the Secretary applied 20 C.F.R. § 416.1140 in determining that the plaintiff was receiving in-kind support because she lived in a house owned by her son and paid him rent which was less than the fair market rental…”

Rothman v. Schweiker (1983) ca2 “20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1140 , 416.1124(c)(10) (1982).”

Mbongo v. Kijakazi (2022) mdd · cites it 2× “See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1140 . The presumed value rule’s presumption is rebuttable, meaning that an individual may demonstrate to the SSA that the current market value of any food or shelter they receive, minus any payment toward them, is lower than the presumed value.”

Beckless v. Chater (1995) ilnd · cites it 4× “The Commissioner presumes in-kind rent is worth a maximum value equal to one-third the recipient’s federal benefit rate plus the general income exclusion described in 20 C.”

Ragsdale v. Apfel (1998) vaed “TV 1986); 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1140 , 416.1124(c)(12) (1997).”

Show all 17 citing cases →

— 20 C.F.R. § 416.1140(a)(1) — 2 cases

Danielle Gordon v. Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services (1995) ca2 “20 C.F.R. § 416.1140 . This presumption can be rebutted by showing that the current market value of the in-kind support minus any payment made for it by the recipient, or the actual amount paid by someone else for the recipient, is lower than the presumed value.”

Carol G. Ellis v. Kenneth Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security (1998) ca2 “See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1140 (describing the “presumed [maximum] value rule”).”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.