- 6 -
Respondent does not dispute that Mr. Reimels’s Social
Security disability insurance benefits were “received as a
pension, annuity, or similar allowance” within the meaning of
section 104(a)(4); consequently, for present purposes we assume
that they were.5 Nor does respondent dispute that Mr. Reimels
has suffered personal injuries or sickness resulting from active
service in the U.S. Armed Forces. Instead, relying on Haar v.
Commissioner, 78 T.C. 864, 866 (1982), affd. 709 F.2d 1206 (8th
Cir. 1983), and its progeny, respondent contends that the section
104(a)(4) exclusion is inapplicable because Social Security
disability insurance benefits are not paid for personal injury or
sickness incurred in military service within the meaning of
section 104(a)(4).
We are unaware of any court decision specifically addressing
the applicability of section 104(a)(4) to Social Security
disability insurance benefits. As explained below, the well-
established and consistent pattern of decisions in Haar and its
progeny compels the conclusion that the Social Security
disability insurance payments that Mr. Reimels received in 1999
are not excludable from income under section 104(a)(4).
5 Sec. 86(f) specifies that “any social security benefit
shall be treated as an amount received as a pension or annuity”
for purposes of certain specified Code sections, not including
sec. 104.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011