- 10 -
We rejected a similar argument in McDowell v. Commissioner,
supra. In McDowell, a Pawtucket firefighter who had been injured
on the job in 1989 contended that the June 22, 1995, amendment
retroactively made the Pawtucket City ordinance a worker's
compensation statute under section 104(a)(1). We concluded in
McDowell: "Even if the amendment were to be given retrospective
effect, it would not cause the ordinance to be a statute in the
nature of a worker's compensation act." The taxpayer's argument
failed in McDowell where retroactivity of the amendments to
Pawtucket disability pension ordinances was at issue.
Petitioner's retroactivity argument is even less persuasive here
because he was paid under the regular service pension ordinance.
B. Americans with Disabilities Act
Petitioner contends that the payments of $7,101 should not
be included in income in 1992 because he has suffered economic
discrimination, and that he had decreased purchasing power
because of his injuries in violation of ADA section 2, 42 U.S.C.
section 12101. Petitioner contends that Pawtucket's and
respondent's policies discriminate against disabled persons. We
disagree. Petitioner cited no authority that the ADA, and not
the Internal Revenue Code, controls whether petitioner's pension
payments are taxable. Even if he did, petitioner would not be
entitled to relief under the ADA here. ADA section 202, 42
U.S.C. section 12132, provides:3
3 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-
336, sec. 203, 104 Stat. 337 (current version at 42 U.S.C. sec.
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011