- 12 -
In the case of a dual-purpose statute, the appropriate focus
is on whether the taxpayer in fact received his disability
retirement benefits under that specific provision that is in the
nature of a workers’ compensation act. Neill v. Commissioner, 17
T.C. at 1016 (“However, the mere fact that * * * [the taxpayer]
was incapacitated at the time of retirement is not sufficient to
bring the exemption into play if he was actually retired for
length of service rather than for disability incurred in [the]
line of duty.”). Respondent suggests that regardless of whether
CGC section 75061(a) contains a specific provision in the nature
of a workers’ compensation act, we must look solely to those
provisions under which the disability retirement benefits were
calculated and paid, i.e., CGC sections 75075 and 75076(a), and
that those provisions are not in the nature of a workers’
compensation act.10 Petitioners argue that CGC sections 75075
and 75076 should be read in the context of “the entire statutory
9(...continued)
under the ordinary workmen’s compensation act.” Rev. Rul. 59-
269, 1959-2 C.B. 39, 41. Thus, the compensatory elements of a
workers’ compensation act may differ from the substituted or
supplemental compensation under a statute in the nature of a
workers’ compensation act. We cannot agree that Judge Byrne’s
receipt of the permanent disability payments is especially
relevant to the question before us.
10Respondent relies on a letter dated Oct. 26, 2001, from
Cal. PERS, which confirms that Judge Byrne was awarded 65 percent
of the salary payable to a municipal court judge as provided in
secs. 75075 and 75076(a). However, the same letter states that
Judge Byrne was “granted a disability retirement on December 14,
1989 as provided under Government Code section 75060(a).”
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