- 8 -
Petitioner contends that the result in his case should be
different because, unlike the taxpayer in Haar, he actually
received disability compensation from the Veterans
Administration. He attempts to distinguish his case from Haar
and others following it on the ground that in those cases there
was no specific finding that the injuries for which the taxpayer
received disability retirement were caused by active service in
the Armed Forces. See French v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-
196; Grady v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-55; Tolotti v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-13. Since petitioner's disability
pension from the New York City Employees' Retirement System was
based on the Medical Board Report, which included reports of
physicians diagnosing petitioner as suffering from Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder, petitioner contends that his pension was
received "because of a disability incurred while serving in the
military." Haar v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. at 866.
Contrary to petitioner's assertions, the key to the holding
of Haar and its progeny is not whether the taxpayer received
disability compensation from the Veterans Administration or
whether there was a specific finding that the disability was
service-related. Haar looked to the retirement plan under the
Civil Service Retirement Act, and determined that it was "not
designed to provide compensation for military injuries." Id. at
866. In this case, the New York City Employees' Retirement
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011