- 17 -
retroactivity allowed for income tax purposes in that case was 9
to 10 months, coinciding with the interval between the veteran’s
filing and the VA’s granting his application for the disability
benefits.
In the present case petitioner applied to the city council
on January 26, 2000, for recertification of his benefits and the
application received final approval the following March 27.
There is no dispute presented over the characterization of
payments received during the 2-month interim. Rather,
petitioner, by relying on section 10-12, as amended in 1999,
attempts to recharacterize income received by petitioner in 1992,
at least 7 years before. The sole purpose of amended section 10-
12 paragraph L, allowing for recertification and redesignation of
disability benefits, is to afford a favorable treatment for
Federal income tax purposes. We conclude that section 10-12, as
amended in 1999, does not grant retroactive effect for Federal
tax purposes to the benefits petitioner received in 1992.
Conclusion
This matter is before the Court on cross-motions for summary
judgment. The only question raised by this action is a question
of law; namely, whether a disability pension amount received
during 1992 by petitioner under section 10-12 of the Cranston
City Code or the collective bargain agreement should be
considered taxable income to him. We hold that the amount
Page: 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