- 8 - The Judges’ Retirement Law is not a workers’ compensation act, and it is not in its entirety a statute in the nature of a workers’ compensation act. Nevertheless, benefits received under the Judges’ Retirement Law may still qualify for exclusion if it is a “dual-purpose statute”, as petitioners argue. See Neill v. Commissioner, 17 T.C. 1015 (1951); Burgess v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1986-228, affd. without published opinion 822 F.2d 61 (9th Cir. 1987); Craft v. United States, 879 F. Supp. 925 (S.D. Ind. 1995); Frye v. United States, 72 F. Supp. 405 (D.D.C. 1947). “A dual-purpose statute is one which authorizes payments for work- related, as well as non-work-related disabilities and may provide other pension benefits.” Kane v. United States, 28 Fed. Cl. 10, 13 (1993), affd. 43 F.3d 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994). To qualify as a dual-purpose statute, the statute must contain some specific provision which restricts the payment of benefits to cases of work-related disabilities. Id. at 14; see also Rutter v. Commissioner, supra at 468. Petitioners argue that the Judges’ Retirement Law is a dual- purpose statute because CGC section 75061(a) “has one provision that provides for retirement based solely on injury or sickness arising out of employment, and also one provision providing for retirement based on years of service.” Respondent contends that CGC section 75060 makes no distinction between injuries which are work related and injuries which are not work related and that CGC section 75061 modifies CGC section 75060 but does not add any newPage: 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