- 12 -
E. Petitioners’ Argument To Overturn Haar
Petitioners suggest that Haar was wrongly decided and that
we should no longer follow it. Petitioners contend that section
104(a)(4) contains no express requirement that a disability
pension be received under a statute designed to compensate for
military injuries. They contend that under the literal language
of section 104(a)(4) it is sufficient that Mr. Reimels received
his Social Security disability insurance benefits on account of a
disability resulting from combat-related injuries.
In support of their contentions, petitioners rely upon
Freeman v. United States, 265 F.2d 66 (9th Cir. 1959), and Prince
v. United States, 127 Ct. Cl. 612, 119 F. Supp. 421 (1954).
Petitioners’ reliance on these cases is misplaced. Freeman and
Prince involved military compensation statutes that were
designed, at least in part, to compensate for injuries incurred
during, or as an incident of, active military service. In each
case, the court linked the taxpayer’s injuries to that portion of
the retirement statute that awarded benefits for service-
connected disabilities.
The instant case, like Haar and its progeny, and unlike
Freeman and Prince, does not involve benefits received under
military compensation statutes. Relevant legislative history
supports the view that only pensions, annuities, or similar
allowances that are received under what are essentially military
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011