- 15 -
critical element of being “on account of personal injury or
sickness.” Commissioner v. Schleier, supra at 330. In the
instant case, the record is clear that the payments made to
petitioner were for backpay and interest on backpay. We conclude
that the income from backpay and interest on backpay does not
fall within the exclusion from income set forth in section
104(a)(2).
Petitioner’s final argument is that the money received from
the district was an unauthorized withdrawal from her pension.
Petitioner bears the burden of proof. See Rule 142(a). Other
than petitioner’s testimony that she was concerned that the
payment for backpay offered by the district could have been an
unauthorized withdrawal from her retirement fund, she offered no
proof that the money was withdrawn from the Pennsylvania School
Employees Retirement System. All of the other evidence supports
a conclusion that none of the amounts in issue constituted
withdrawals from petitioner’s retirement fund. In fact,
petitioner’s 1992 Form W-2 reflects $7,933.70 in contributions by
her to the pension plan during the year. Thus, we conclude that
petitioner’s assertion lacks merit.
C. State Income Tax Refund and Interest Income
Petitioner stipulated that she received a $182 State income
tax refund in 1992 that she had claimed as a deduction in prior
years. Petitioner offered no evidence that respondent’s
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011