Thomas G. Wright and Estate of Rosemary K. Wright, Deceased, Thomas G. Wright, Personal Representative - Page 14

                                       - 14 -                                         
          result of his contributions to the plan and that not more than 60           
          percent of his benefits were attributable to employer                       
          contributions.  See Laws v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-21;               
          Miley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-236.                                 
               Second, petitioners have not shown that any amounts                    
          contributed by STRS were included in petitioners’ gross income.             
          Consequently, petitioners have not established that they are                
          entitled to exclude portions of the benefits under section 105.9            
               Third, petitioners’ contention is contrary to the applicable           
          regulations discussed below.  The regulations under section 72              
          explain the applicability of section 72 to accident and health              
          plans, as well as to distributions from profit sharing plans                



               9 In their petition, petitioners also cited sec. 104 in                
          support of the alleged nontaxable nature of the disability                  
          payments.  Since petitioners mentioned sec. 104 at trial only in            
          their opening statement and did not address it on brief, the                
          Court assumes that petitioners either have concluded that sec.              
          104 arguments are subsumed by sec. 105(a) or have abandoned                 
          and/or conceded any sec. 104 issue.  In any event, sec. 104 would           
          be inapplicable here.  Sec. 104(a)(3) excludes from gross income            
          those amounts received by an employee “through accident or health           
          insurance”.  However, amounts are not excluded to the extent that           
          these amounts were either: (1) Attributable to contributions paid           
          by the employer which were not included in the employee’s gross             
          income, or (2) paid by the employer.  Petitioners would not be              
          entitled to exclude Mr. Wright’s benefits under sec. 104(a)(3)              
          because they failed to establish that Mr. Wright’s contributions            
          to STRS were used to fund his disability retirement benefits,               
          much less the portion of the benefits that were funded by his               
          employee contributions.  Conroy v. Commissioner, 41 T.C. 685,               
          692-693 (1964), affd. 341 F.2d 290 (4th Cir. 1965); Merker v.               
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-277; Shaffer v. Commissioner, T.C.            
          Memo. 1994-618.                                                             





Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011