- 6 -
Postal Service. Consequently, we find that petitioner was
“unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity” during the
year in issue.2
Respondent next argues that petitioner’s condition was not
“indefinite” within the meaning of section 72(m)(7). The
regulations elaborate on this term as follows:
The term “indefinite” is used in the sense that it cannot
reasonably be anticipated that the impairment will, in the
foreseeable future, be so diminished as no longer to prevent
substantial gainful activity. For example, an individual
who suffers a bone fracture which prevents him from working
for an extended period of time will not be considered
disabled, if his recovery can be expected in the foreseeable
future; if the fracture persistently fails to knit, the
individual would ordinarily be considered disabled.
Sec. 1.72-17A(f)(3), Income Tax Regs.
We find that petitioner’s disability was indefinite at the
time of the TSP distribution. At that time, petitioner had
attempted to return to work, which only caused her condition to
worsen. She was unable to work due to her disability, and there
was no reasonably certain indication of when she would be able to
return to work. Indeed, as of the time of trial petitioner had
been unable to do so. The inability to predict when, if ever,
petitioner would be able to return to work caused the disability
2Respondent points to petitioner’s involvement with certain
rental properties and the creation of a nonprofit organization as
indicative of an ability to engage in substantial gainful
activity. However, we find that petitioner’s involvement in
these activities was de minimis.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011