James A. Picard - Page 16

                                       - 16 -                                         

          similar reading.10  However, there is no indication that the                
          municipal charters' designation of time spent on disability as              
          "creditable service", or as eligible for service credit, was                
          dispositive in either prior case.  Irrespective of the technical            
          labels, the charter provisions in both cases functioned the same            
          way, deeming time spent on disability as equivalent to time spent           
          actively working, and counting both in setting the date when a              
          disabled employee was treated as if he had taken service                    
          retirement, with a corresponding adjustment to his retirement               
          payments.  The charter provisions in the instant case are                   
          functionally indistinguishable from the foregoing.11  The                   

               10The Wiedmaier opinion at times refers to disability time             
          and active working time collectively as "creditable service", the           
          Detroit Charter's formal designation of the employment periods              
          counted for purposes of retirement benefits.  Arguably, this                
          suggests that the Charter's formal categorization mattered in the           
          Court's analysis.  Elsewhere, however, the opinion refers to                
          disability and working time collectively as "length of service"             
          or as "the number of years the employee * * * worked for the                
          organization", suggesting that the equivalence of disability and            
          working time did not depend upon the Charter's formal labels.               
               11Citing Givens v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 1145 (1988),                  
          petitioner argues that Oakland Charter sec. 2610(a)'s treatment             
          of a disability retiree "as if" he had taken service retirement             
          on the 25th anniversary of his hire does not mean that the                  
          disability retirement allowance recomputed on that premise "is              
          determined by reference to the employee's age or length of                  
          service" (quoting sec. 1.104-1(b), Income Tax Regs.).  Givens               
          involved the question of whether certain payments were for job-             
          related injury, so that they qualified as workmen's compensation            
          within the meaning of sec. 104(a)(1).   The amounts were paid               
          under a municipal workmen's compensation statute that offered as            
          compensation for job-related injury the same "sick leave"                   
          benefits available to workers with non-job-related injury.  (The            

Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011