- 6 -
taxpayer is absent from work. With respect to the first part of
section 105(c)(2), Rosen v. United States, 829 F.2d 506, 509 (4th
Cir. 1987), states as follows:
A review of the cases indicates that for payments to be
excludible from income under section 105(c), the instrument
or agreement under which the amounts are paid must itself
provide specificity as to the permanent loss or injury
suffered and the corresponding amount of payments to be
provided. * * * exclusion is permitted only under plans
which vary benefits to reflect the particular loss of bodily
function. * * *
Petitioner has been unable to establish that the disability
plan payments he received from MetLife comport with the
requirements of section 105(c). Indeed, petitioner concedes that
the monthly payments from MetLife are computed based on the
number of years of credited service petitioner had at General
Motors and not with regard to any injury as required by section
105(c)(2).
On the basis of the record, we find that the disability plan
payments petitioner received from MetLife are not excludable from
gross income pursuant to section 105(c). Since we find that on
the basis of the record the disability payments fail to satisfy
section 105(c)(2), we need not decide whether they satisfy
section 105(c)(1).
In the alternative, petitioner contends that even if we find
that the disability payments are not excludable from gross income
pursuant to section 105(c), the disability plan payments are part
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011