Lawrence L. and Kathleen J. Kelter - Page 9

                                                 - 9 -                                                    

            Plan.  Petitioners claim that the plan distributions were made                                
            under section 9.3 of the Plan on account of petitioner becoming                               
            totally and permanently disabled.  The Plan contains no                                       
            definition of the term “totally and permanently disabled”,                                    
            although the Committee, which consisted of petitioner and his                                 
            wife, determined that the term meant that a Plan participant                                  
            would be unable to do any job.                                                                
                  The cases cited previously, Beisler v. Commissioner, supra                              
            and Hines v. Commissioner, supra, suggest that, to satisfy the                                
            computed-with-reference-to-the-nature-of-the-injury requirement                               
            of section 105(c)(2), an employee health or accident plan must                                
            provide at least two levels of benefits, with the difference in                               
            entitlement at each level keyed to the nature (severity) of the                               
            injury compensated at that level.  Whether a plan that has only                               
            one level of benefit, keyed to truly the severest of injuries                                 
            (e.g., loss of all limbs or irreversible coma), would qualify is                              
            unclear.  See Beisler v. Commissioner, supra at 1308 n.3.  We                                 
            need not deal with that theoretical possibility, however,                                     
            because, although here there was only one level of benefit                                    
            specified in the Plan (for total and permanent disability), we                                
            are unconvinced that the term “total and permanent disability”,                               
            as used in section 9.3 of the Plan, encompassed injuries of only                              
            the truly severest kind.                                                                      







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011