- 6 -
Respondent contends that petitioners may not exclude FERS
payments received during the year in issue from gross income
because the amounts were not received under a worker’s
compensation act pursuant to section 104(a)(1), or a statute in
the nature of a worker’s compensation act pursuant to section
1.104-1(b), Income Tax Regs.
Petitioners contend that the disability pension amounts
received should be paid under FECA rather than FERS. The parties
agree that had the payments been made under FECA they would be
excludable under section 104(a)(1).
This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction as
specifically authorized by Congress. See sec. 7442; Neilson v.
Commissioner, 94 T.C. 1, 9 (1990). Although we have jurisdiction
to redetermine the income tax deficiency under section 6213, the
Court does not have jurisdiction to decide employee benefit
entitlement issues that fall within the purview of various
departments and agencies of the United States Government. See
sec. 7442; Merker v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-277; Steines
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-588, affd. without published
opinion 12 F.3d 1101 (7th Cir. 1993). The record is clear that
petitioner’s numerous requests to transform the payor of the
disability payments from FERS to FECA have been consistently
denied. Further, all payments at issue in this case are
disability payments pursuant to FERS. Therefore, the issue
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011