When counting the value of resources an individual (and spouse, if any) has, the value of property essential to self-support is not counted, within certain limits. There are different rules for considering this property depending on whether it is income-producing or not. Property essential to self-support can include real and personal property (for example, land, buildings, equipment and supplies, motor vehicles, and tools, etc.) used in a trade or business (as defined in § 404.1066 of part 404), nonbusiness income-producing property (houses or apartments for rent, land other than home property, etc.) and property used to produce goods or services essential to an individual's daily activities. Liquid resources other than those used as part of a trade or business are not property essential to self-support. If the individual's principal place of residence qualifies under the home exclusion, it is not considered in evaluating property essential to self-support.
[50 FR 42687, Oct. 22, 1985]
Notes of Decisions
Me. Ass'n of Interdependent Neighborhoods v. Petit, 659 F. Supp. 1309 (D. Me. 1987).
· cites it 4× “22, 1985), codified at 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1220 -.1224 (1986). He points to the fact that prior to removal and consolidation, the state court pleadings in both of these cases sought to invalidate the $6,000/6% rule on the ground that, although the Secretary used it and required the…”
Herron v. Heckler, 576 F. Supp. 218 (N.D. Cal. 1983).
“Such property shall include both the property used in a trade or business * * * and property not used in a trade or business but which nevertheless produces income * * 20 C.F.R. § 416.1220 . These two regulations are significant herein because plaintiff claims that she has met…”
Est. of Robertson Ex Rel. Robertson v. Cass Cnty. Soc. Servs., 492 N.W.2d 599 (N.D. 1992).
“Doranna relied on a federal regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 416.1220 , that, for purposes of the SSI program, exempts property essential to self-support, including liquid resources used in conjunction with the operation of a trade or business.”
Maine Ass'n of Interdependent Neighborhoods v. Petit, 659 F. Supp. 1309 (D. Me. 1987).
· cites it 2× “Rather, the Commissioner’s argument is that because the $6,000/6% rule contained in the Secretary’s POMS was in fact being used in SSI eligibility determinations, the state’s use of the rule for Medicaid eligibility purposes was not impermissibly restrictive.”
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.