- 6 -
The Consent Award was the complete agreement of
the parties. The claim that the payments were to be
“tax free” is without merit. It flies in the face of
the clear language of the stipulated settlement that
led to issuance of the Consent Award.
* * * * * * *
Under the terms of the Consent Award, grievant was
entitled to two equal lump sum payments. The payments
in the appropriate amounts were made pursuant to the
Consent Award.
Furthermore, the “tax status” of the payments must
be determined by the Internal Revenue Service and the
Department of Taxation and Finance. I have no
authority to issue “exemptions” to anyone, let alone
Mr. Broedel.
It appears that Mr. Broedel has received every
dime he is entitled to. If he has a tax liability, that
is a matter to be worked out between Grievant and the
tax collectors.
It is not my function to ignore the clear-cut
language and interpret same as if it said something
else. * * *
By reason of the foregoing, I issue the following
The payments under * * * the Consent Award
were not intended to be “tax free.” Grievant
has not been underpaid. There are no
additional monies owed to Grievant.
Before his retirement on December 14, 1993, Mr. Broedel took
out a loan from the New York State and Local Retirement System
(NYRS) against his retirement funds. On January 6, 1994, the
NYRS sent Mr. Broedel a letter indicating that he had an
outstanding loan balance and that he had the option of repaying
the balance before January 20, 1994. If he did not repay the
loan, Mr. Broedel’s annual pension would be reduced. Mr. Broedel
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011