- 11 -
other courts. Caplin v. United States, supra at 547; Gordon v.
Commissioner, supra at 637-638.
We conclude that the disability provision in the Hadd-Too
Plan was merely one of several events that could trigger a
participant's claim to accrued retirement benefits. Petitioners
have simply failed to meet their burden of proving by "clear
indicia" that the Plan was intended to serve the dual purpose of
providing accident or health benefits as well as retirement
benefits. Accordingly, the $1,027,229.45 distribution received
by Mr. Hall is taxable as deferred compensation and not
excludable from gross income as accident or health benefits under
section 105.
Even if the Hadd-Too Plan had constituted a dual purpose
plan, the distribution in question fails to meet the requirement
of section 105(c)(2) that the amount of any payment be computed
with reference to the nature of the injury. This requirement is
met only if the plan varies the benefits according to the type
and severity of the taxpayer's injury. Berman v. Commissioner,
925 F.2d at 940; Rosen v. United States, 829 F.2d 506, 509-510
(4th Cir. 1987); Beisler v. Commissioner, 814 F.2d 1304, 1308
(9th Cir. 1987), affg. T.C. Memo. 1985-25; Hines v. Commissioner,
72 T.C. 715, 720 (1979).
Rather than computing benefits with reference to the type
and severity of the injury, the Hadd-Too Plan, upon a showing of
a total disability, determines the benefits solely on the basis
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011