- 7 -
promulgated by the Federal Aviation Administration, rendered him
ineligible for employment as an airline pilot. Under a loss of
license plan maintained by the pilot’s employer, because of his
medical incapacity, he became entitled to certain payments.
Under that plan, all medically incapacitated pilots received the
same yearly benefit. We determined that the payments received by
the pilot failed to satisfy the requirement of section 105(c)(2)
that payments be computed with reference to the nature of the
injury:
The benefits, however, do not vary according to the
type of injury received and a pilot who has a heart
attack is entitled to the same benefits as one who
suffers a mental breakdown or loses a limb. Thus, the
payments are not computed with reference to the nature
of the injury. [Id. at 720.]
We refused to accept the taxpayer’s argument that payment
for any injury that permanently robs an individual of his
principal means of livelihood should qualify for the section
105(c) exclusion. We stated:
We think that the overall scheme of section 105(c) is
aimed at providing tax relief to persons who suffer
serious, permanent physical injury and receive
compensation because of it. The fact that a person may
have also lost wages or suffered a diminution of
earning capacity because of the injury is irrelevant.
* * * [Id.; emphasis added.]
In Beisler v. Commissioner, 814 F.2d 1304 (9th Cir. 1987),
affg. T.C. Memo. 1985-25, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit affirmed a decision of ours based on our finding that
line-of-duty disability payments received on account of a career-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011