- 8 -
Rutter v. Commissioner, supra; Green v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1994-264, affd. 60 F.3d 142 (2d Cir. 1995); Curmon v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-432. Disability payments received
under a collective bargaining agreement are not excludable under
section 104(a)(1). See Rutter v. Commissioner, supra at 468;
McDowell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-500.
Petitioner bears the burden of proving that respondent's
determination is incorrect. See Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering,
290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).
2. Analysis
Petitioner did not include in income the $7,101 in pension
payments that he received from Pawtucket in 1992. Petitioner
contends that the disability payments were in lieu of worker's
compensation because he had been injured on the job and forced to
retire. Petitioner contends that he is being penalized for 31
years of dedicated service because he can no longer work because
of job-related injuries. We disagree. Those payments were at
the regular retirement rate of 60 percent of petitioner's average
3 years' highest salary under section 59-21 of the Pawtucket City
Code because he had more than 25 years of service when he
retired. His pension payments were not made under a statute in
the nature of a worker's compensation act, and section 104(a)(1)
does not apply. Section 59-21 of the Pawtucket City Code did not
provide that petitioner would be paid only if he had work-related
injuries. Thus, the pension payments of $7,101 that were made
under section 59-21 of the Pawtucket City Code are not in lieu of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011