- 12 -
fact that checks were received in Mr. Goldman’s name from the
employer’s insurance carrier did not necessitate exclusion under
section 104(a)(1). The true earner was Mrs. Goldman for the
services she provided to her disabled husband under the statute.
Clearly, in this case, petitioner is not the intended
recipient of amounts received under a workmen’s compensation act
as specified in section 104(a)(1). There is no question that
amounts received by Mr. Baldwin from the workmen’s compensation
award falls under the section 104(a)(1) exclusion from gross
income.
However, because the payments to petitioner were for
attendant and nursing care services rendered by petitioner to Mr.
Baldwin, the amounts paid to petitioner do not constitute amounts
“received under workmen's compensation acts as compensation for
personal injuries or sickness” pursuant to section 104(a)(1) or
amounts received by an employee “under a statute in the nature of
a workmen’s compensation act” pursuant to section 1.104-1(b),
Income Tax Regs. Petitioner received amounts from GM as
compensation for services rendered, albeit to her husband, as an
attendant-care provider. The source of her income is derived
from a separate State statute for assistance as an attendant-care
provider and does not arise from the same workmen’s compensation
statute which awarded Mr. Baldwin’s workmen’s compensation
benefits. The payments herein are compensation for attendant and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011