- 9 -
burden of proof regarding his claim that the disability benefits
should be excluded from income. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering,
290 U.S. 111 (1933).
Petitioner's primary argument is that the disability
benefits he received in 1994 are attributable to contributions
made by him to the disability plans, and, therefore, are excluded
from his gross income under section 104(a)(3). Specifically,
petitioner alleges that he contributed to the disability plans by
paying premiums for disability coverage during the 1980's under a
prior disability plan that the City maintained (the prior plan).
Petitioner argues, in effect, that his investment in coverage
under the prior plan qualifies, in effect, as his contribution to
the successor plans (which provided his disability benefits in
1994) when he agreed to convert to the successor plans and give
up his coverage under the prior plan.5 Based on this theory,
petitioner concludes that the disability benefits paid to him in
1994 are attributable to contributions by him, and, therefore,
must be excluded from his gross income.
5Petitioner also argues that the City did not pay the
premiums for about 6 weeks in early 1991, but he failed to prove
that this was so. Even if petitioner had proved that the City
failed to pay certain premiums for a short time in 1991, the
critical fact is that the only disability plan premiums paid from
1991 to the date of petitioner's disability were paid by the
City.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011