Citation Nr: 21025805 Decision Date: 04/29/21 Archive Date: 04/29/21 DOCKET NO. 16-51 966 DATE: April 29, 2021 REMANDED The issue of whether the overpayment of survivors’ pension in the amount of $20,698.00 was validly created is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND This matter is on appeal from a September 2014 decision which terminated VA survivors pension benefits from February 1, 2010 based on unreported income. An earlier October 2013 decision had terminated benefits from September 1, 2012. The appellant has appealed the validity of the $20,698.00 debt created for the period from February 1, 2010 to September 1, 2012. The appellant testified at a February 2021 Board hearing before the undersigned. The hearing transcript is of record. During the Board hearing, the appellant requested a waiver of the remainder of the overpayment debt. The issue of entitlement to a waiver of the $20,698.00 overpayment debt was initially raised in a May 2015 statement and is referred to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for adjudication.   Whether the overpayment of pension benefits in the amount of $20,698.00 is valid is remanded. The Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) terminated pension benefits from February 1, 2010 based on unreported income identified in a 2010 Income Verification Match (IVM). The appellant contends that she transferred amounts from a lump sum life insurance policy on the Veteran into Oppenheimer Funds. She confirmed withdrawals made from the Oppenheimer Funds accounts in 2010 but contends that the money she put into Oppenheimer Funds was not countable as income as the life insurance proceeds qualify as an exclusion under 38 C.F.R. § 3.272. She submitted 2010 tax documents identifying $141.44 in dividends and capital gain distributions from Oppenheimer Funds. She also submitted a 2010 statement from Oppenheimer Funds, showing that she made withdrawals from the account totaling $62,628.00. The Board finds that while dividends and capital gains paid by Oppenheimer Funds qualify as unearned income, the withdrawals made from the balance of the appellant’s accounts do not. During the pendency of the appeal, however, in May 2017, the AOJ terminated pension from January 1, 2010 based on the appellant’s net worth, counting the $214,220.43 the appellant received from life insurance proceeds. The Board finds that because the net worth decision directly impacts the question of whether the overpayment of pension benefits in the amount of $20,698.00 is valid, the issues are inextricably intertwined. In January 2017 correspondence, the appellant indicated that she transferred funds from the life insurance payment to her credit union, paid down and paid off a lot of debt, and put money into Oppenheimer Funds. The Board finds that a remand is warranted to afford the appellant an opportunity to submit documentation relating to her net worth, to include credit union statements, evidence of any debts or expenses that were paid from the proceeds of the Veteran’s life insurance policy to reduce net worth, and evidence of amounts transferred into Oppenheimer Funds or other accounts. Thereafter, the AOJ should issue a supplemental statement of the case addressing the validity of the debt in light of the appellant’s net worth.  The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Request that the appellant submit evidence documenting her net worth from the time she received a September 2009 life insurance payment, to include credit union statements, evidence of any debts or expenses that were paid from the proceeds of the life insurance policy to reduce net worth, and evidence of amounts transferred into Oppenheimer Funds or other accounts. 2. After the above development has been completed, readjudicate the issue of whether the overpayment of survivors’ pension in the amount of $20,698.00 was validly created, to include the intertwined question of whether the termination of VA survivors’ pension from January 1, 2010 based on the appellant’s net worth was proper. If the benefit sought is not granted, send the appellant and her representative a Supplemental Statement of the Case and provide an opportunity to respond. If necessary, return the case to the Board for appellate review. M. SORISIO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Christine C. Kung The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.