Wesley T. and Ruth T. Enloe - Page 8

                                        - 7 -                                         
          injury without regard to the period * * * [he was] absent from              
          work."  Sec. 105(c)(2).                                                     
               Since the plan in this case is plainly labeled a "pension              
          plan", petitioners must argue that it serves a dual capacity as             
          an accident or health plan as well.  The regulations permit a               
          dual function.  See sec. 1.401-1(b)(1)(ii), Income Tax Regs.                
               Generally, pension plans and accident or health plans serve            
          different purposes.  Pension plans are designed to provide an               
          employee with predetermined fixed payments over a period of                 
          years, usually for life.  Sec. 1.401-1(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.              
          The amounts of pension payments are usually measured by such                
          factors as the length of the employee's service with the employer           
          and the compensation received by the employee.  Id.  On the other           
          hand, accident or health plans are designed to provide payments             
          to employees in the event of illness or injury and are not based            
          on the employee's compensation and length of service.                       
               In order to show that petitioner's pension plan was a dual             
          purpose plan, and falls within section 105(a), petitioners must             
          show that the plan was intended to provide accident or health               
          benefits.  Berman v. Commissioner, 925 F.2d 936, 939 (6th Cir.              
          1991), affg. T.C. Memo. 1989-654; Estate of Hall v. Commissioner,           
          T.C. Memo. 1996-93, affd. without published opinion 103 F.3d 112            
          (3d Cir. 1996).                                                             








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011