James Brooks and Barbara Brooks - Page 3

                                        - 3 -                                         

          in 1993, Brooks had attained the rank of sergeant.  McMahon                 
          retired in 1990 having attained the rank of captain.                        
               Petitioners were eligible for retirement under the City                
          disability pension plan (plan).  Under the plan employees were              
          paid at the rate of 50 percent of their salary if the employee              
          was below the age of 55.  Pursuant to State law, however, the               
          City was required to settle police employment disputes by binding           
          arbitration.  In 1989 the City entered into a collective                    
          bargaining agreement (agreement) with the Union to provide                  
          increased benefits to police officers.                                      
               In accordance with the provisions of the agreement,                    
          petitioners received annual disability pension payments equal to            
          60 percent of their annual salary at the time of their                      
          retirement.                                                                 
               Brooks for the year 1993 and McMahon for the year 1992 did             
          not report on their Federal income tax returns any of the                   
          disability-pension payments they received from the City.                    
                                       OPINION                                        
               Respondent contends that petitioners may not exclude from              
          gross income amounts they received as disability payments because           
          the City ordinance implementing the plan is neither a workers'              
          compensation act nor in the nature of a workers' compensation act           
          as required by statute.  The ordinance does not meet statutory              
          requirements, according to respondent, because the wording of the           
          ordinance does not specifically limit benefits to those who are             



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011