- 15 - An exception to the above rule exists where the modification is based on a showing "that the original decree did not correctly state the divorce court's determination at the time of its entry.” Johnson v. Commissioner, 45 T.C. 530, 533 (1966); see Vargason v. Commissioner, 22 T.C. 100 (1954); Sklar v. Commissioner, 21 T.C. 349 (1953). Thus, recognition for Federal tax purposes of certain property rights retroactively conferred at the State or local level is not absolute. In the case before us, petitioner attempts to apply a city ordinance whose sole purpose was to change retroactively the tax status of the payments received by petitioner. Notably, section 10-12, as amended in 1999, does not permit the payment of additional pension amounts when a request for retroactive redesignation is granted. Thus the distinction drawn by the amended ordinance as between nonoccupational injuries, for which disability payments would be measured by 50 percent of salary, and occupational injuries, for which the measure would be 66-2/3 percent, operated with prospective effect only. Petitioner received no extra benefits for the years 1992 through 1998 as a result of the city’s recharacterization of his status. The city council’s intent in providing for the retroactive redesignation of a disability pension is made clear in the language of the ordinance: to “provide disability retirees with an opportunity to redesignate benefits as occupational disabilityPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011