- 11 -
and its progeny, Mr. Reimels’s Social Security disability
insurance benefits were not paid for personal injuries or
sickness resulting from military service within the meaning of
section 104(a)(4). Accordingly, these Social Security disability
insurance benefits, which are expressly includable in income to
the extent provided under section 86, are not eligible for
exclusion under section 104(a)(4).
D. Petitioners’ Argument To Distinguish Haar v.
Commissioner
Petitioners argue that Haar is distinguishable in that the
taxpayer in Haar had been denied disability compensation from the
Veterans’ Administration, whereas the Veterans’ Administration
awarded Mr. Reimels a 100-percent service-connected disability.
This Court has previously concluded, however, that Haar cannot be
fairly distinguished on such grounds. As we stated in Kiourtsis
v. Commissioner, supra:
Contrary to petitioner’s assertions, the key to
the holding of Haar and its progeny is not whether the
taxpayer received disability compensation from the
Veterans Administration or whether there was a specific
finding that the disability was service-related. Haar
looked to the retirement plan under the Civil Service
Retirement Act, and determined that it was “not
designed to provide compensation for military
injuries.” * * *
Similarly, as just discussed, disability insurance benefits
under the Social Security Act are not designed to provide
compensation for military injuries.
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