- 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