- 9 -
eligibility criteria.6 Respondent adds that CGC section 75061
“simply excludes from eligibility, any judge who seeks disability
retirement for a non-line-of-duty injury if he has less than two
* * * years of service”.
We generally look only to the face of a statute in
determining whether it has a dual purpose. CGC section 75061(a)
on its face provides for retirement in the case of a disability
that is the result of injury or disease arising out of, and in
the course of, judicial service. Thus, the Judges’ Retirement
Law contains a specific provision that awards benefits solely for
a work-related disability.
A simple recitation in a statutory enactment of certain
“magic language” may not be alone sufficient to establish a dual-
purpose statute. However, CGC section 75061(a) does distinguish
between work-related and non-work-related disabilities because
all judges with work-related disabilities are eligible for
retirement under CGC section 75060(a), but judges with non-work-
related injuries can retire only if they have been credited with
sufficient years of service; i.e., at least 2 years of service.7
6CGC sec. 75060 was previously at issue in Golden v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1971-162. We did not decide whether the
statute had a dual purpose, and we decided only that the taxpayer
had not shown his injuries were work related.
7We note that as a practical matter, disabled judges who
have more than 2 years of service are eligible for retirement on
that basis even though they also sustained a work-related
disability. Indeed, Judge Byrne appears to fall within this
(continued...)
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