Jose Hernandez - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         

               Respondent’s determination is presumed correct, and                    
          petitioner bears the burden of proving otherwise.  Rule 142(a);             
          Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).                               
               Section 105(a) provides that amounts received by an employee           
          under accident or health plans funded by the employer are                   
          included in the employee’s gross income.  Section 105(c),                   
          however, provides this exception to the general rule:                       
                    SEC. 105(c). Payments Unrelated to Absence From                   
               Work.--Gross income does not include amounts referred                  
               to in subsection (a) to the extent such amounts--                      
                    (1) constitute payment for the permanent loss                     
                    or loss of use of a member or function of the                     
                    body, or the permanent disfigurement, of the                      
                    taxpayer * * * and                                                
                    (2) are computed with reference to the nature                     
                    of the injury without regard to the period                        
                    the employee is absent from work.                                 
               We hold that the distribution amounts are not excludable               
          under section 105 from petitioner’s 1993 gross income.                      
          Petitioner received the disability payments under a long-term               
          disability plan (i.e., plan A) that was fully funded by the City.           
          The record clearly demonstrates that no funds were withheld from            
          petitioner’s wages and that petitioner did not pay for the plan             
          from other sources.  Moreover, the section 105(c) exception does            
          not apply.  Petitioner did not establish that the payments were             
          computed with reference to the nature of his injuries without               
          regard to the period he was absent from work.  Beisler v.                   
          Commissioner, 814 F.2d 1304, 1307-1308 (9th Cir. 1987), affg. en            




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011