James A. Picard - Page 21

                                       - 21 -                                         

          determined with reference to petitioner's "length of service"               
          within the meaning of section 1.104-1(b), Income Tax Regs., and             
          are therefore ineligible for the exclusion provided in section              
          104(a)(1).                                                                  
               Petitioner raises one final argument in his reply brief,               
          that the phrase "to the extent" in section 1.104-1(b), Income Tax           
          Regs., permits petitioner to exclude the disability allowance.              
          Petitioner relies on four revenue rulings:  Rev. Rul. 72-44,                
          1972-1 C.B. 32; Rev. Rul. 80-44, 1980-1 C.B. 34; Rev. Rul. 85-              
          104, 1985-2 C.B. 52; and Rev. Rul. 85-105, 1985-2 C.B. 53.  The             
          revenue rulings all involve situations where the employee was               
          paid a base percentage amount in the nature of worker's                     
          compensation if retired for disability, and was paid additional             
          amounts, over and above the base amount, if the employee had a              
          sufficient number of years of service.  The Revenue Rulings all             
          held that the base amount was excludable but that the amounts               
          over and above the base amount were includable because they were            
          determined by reference to length of service.  In the instant               
          case, however, the allowance that petitioner received that was              
          not determined by reference to length of service (75 percent of             
          1-year average compensation) exceeded the allowance that was                
          determined by reference to length of service (50 percent of 1-              
          year average compensation).  The revenue rulings, therefore, have           
          no relevance to this case.  The payments received by petitioner             





Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011