Ramon J. and Sheila A. Jeanmarie - Page 2

                                        - 2 -                                         
               The sole issue for decision is whether $13,380 petitioner              
          Ramon J. Jeanmarie (petitioner) received in 1999 from the Office            
          of Personnel Management (OPM) as disability benefits under the              
          Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) is excludable from income            
          pursuant to section 104(a)(4).1                                             
                                  FINDINGS OF FACT                                    
               None of the facts have been stipulated.  At the time they              
          filed the petition, petitioners resided in El Paso, Texas.                  
               In 1976, petitioner enlisted in the United States Army                 
          (Army).  Prior to joining the Army, petitioner suffered from                
          urinary problems.  He thought his urinary problems were corrected           
          before entering the Army; however, after entering the Army, his             
          symptoms returned.                                                          
               Petitioner served in the Army until 1979.  Petitioner                  
          received an honorable discharge, not a medical discharge, from              
          the Army.  Petitioner did not receive Veterans’ Administration              
          (VA) disability when he left the Army.  Petitioner’s urinary                
          problems persisted after he left the Army.                                  
               After he left the Army, petitioner was employed as a civil             
          service employee of the United States Navy (Navy).  In 1983,                
          petitioner’s employment with the Navy was terminated.  Petitioner           
          “fought” his termination, and in 1987 he was reinstated.                    


               1  At trial, respondent conceded the only other adjustment             
          contained in the notice of deficiency, $20 of interest income,              
          because it was de minimis.                                                  




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

Last modified: May 25, 2011