- 5 -
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. * * *
Accord Beisler v. Commissioner, 814 F.2d 1304, 1307 (9th Cir.
1987), affg. T.C. Memo. 1985-25; Hines v. Commissioner, 72 T.C.
715, 720 (1979). Petitioner relies on a letter from the pension
trust manager stating that petitioner’s receipt of the monthly
pension is solely based on the amount of petitioner’s Social
Security disability benefits. The letter also informs petitioner
that upon attaining age 65, “this Disability Pension was
converted to an Age Pension.” It is well settled that we “are
fully justified in examining such contracts or relationships to
determine whether they are truthfully described by the labels
which the parties have attached to them.” Graybar Elec. Co. v.
Commissioner, 29 T.C. 818 (1958), affd. per curiam 267 F.2d 403
(2d Cir. 1959). The labeling of the pension trust as
“disability” without evidence confirming that the requirements of
section 105(c) have been met is not binding on us. At trial,
petitioner did not produce the written pension trust agreement
and has been unable to establish that the pension trust payments
he received from the union comport with the requirements of
section 105(c). Indeed, petitioner concedes that the union
computed his pension trust benefits based on the number of hours
performed and years of credited service rather than with regard
to any injury as required by section 105(c)(2).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011