- 8 -
ending injury sustained by a professional football player were
not computed with reference to the nature of the football injury
he sustained. The player earned a specified benefit credit for
each season he played, which was not dependent on the nature of
the injuries sustained. If appealed, our decision in this case
is likely to go to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
In affirming our decision in the Beisler case, the Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said: “We conclude that benefit
payments, to be excludable from gross income under section
105(c), must be made under a plan that varies benefits according
to the type and severity of the injury incurred.” Id. at 1307.
Turning to the facts of the case before it, the Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit said:
Mr. Beisler's benefit payments necessarily fail to
qualify for exclusion under section 105(c)(2). Rather
than computing benefit amounts with reference to the
type and severity of the injury, the NFL Plan, upon a
showing of substantial disablement, determines them
solely on the basis of the number of seasons played.
The fact that the NFL Plan compensates only the most
severe permanent injuries (those subsumed under the
term "substantial disablement") does not cure this
section 105(c)(2) defect. * * * The plan makes no
attempt to distinguish among the various "substantial
disablements," even though the types and severity of
these injuries can vary greatly. The NFL Plan thus
does not compute the amount of its disability payments
with reference to the nature of the injury. [Id. at
1309; emphasis added.]
III. Discussion
The payments in question here (the plan distributions)
equaled 100 percent of petitioner’s accrued benefits under the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011