9
best read to require that benefits vary according to the
type and severity of a person's injury. Only then are the
payments and the injury sufficiently related to reflect the
compensatory purpose required by section 105(c). * * *
Id. at 1308. In West v. Commissioner, supra, we similarly held
that because the taxpayer's benefits were based on the number of
his years of service as a pipefitter at the time of the accident,
the payments were not based upon the type and severity of the
injury as required by section 105(c)(2).
Petitioner argues that the benefits he received vary
depending on whether his disability occurred on or off duty. He
contends that this factor satisfies the criteria of section
105(c)(2). We disagree. Payments made under the Pension Code
are expressly based on an officer's salary at the time of the
injury. The distinction between where injuries occurring on and
off duty does not meet the statutory requirement that the
benefits be computed with reference to the type and severity of
the injury in question. Petitioner would have received the same
benefits regardless of the severity of the injury that led to his
disablement as a police officer. Furthermore, if petitioner had
been recalled to duty, benefits would have ceased. Therefore,
petitioner's disability pension is not computed with reference to
the nature of the injury and is affected by the period petitioner
was absent from work. Because the exception under section 105(c)
does not apply to petitioner's disability pension, the payments
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011