- 14 -
pertinent evidence. See Ware v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 1267, 1268
(1989), affd. 906 F.2d 62 (2d Cir. 1990).
Though petitioner has failed to establish in the record
before us that the Michigan Worker’s Compensation Act qualifies
as “an accident and health plan” as defined in section 105(e),
and has further failed to establish that the payments she
received from Healthcare are “amounts received by an employee”
pursuant to section 105(a), the issue can be decided based solely
on the language of the relevant statute, and we shall therefore
allow petitioner to argue her reliance on section 105 in her
brief.
Petitioner’s contention that her payments are excludable
from gross income for the years in issue pursuant to section
105(b) is not supported by the language of section 105. Section
105(a) excludes certain “amounts received by an employee” from
gross income and section 105(b) excludes “amounts referred to in
subsection (a) if such amounts are paid, directly or indirectly,
to the taxpayer to reimburse the taxpayer” for incurred medical
expenses. Section 105 concerns the tax treatment of the employee
and not the attendant-care provider. Petitioner in this case is
clearly not a taxpayer being reimbursed for medical expenses but
an attendant-care provider being paid for services rendered to
such a taxpayer.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011