- 2 -
Held: P received benefits under a provision in
the statute that is not “in the nature of a workmen’s
compensation act.” Sec. 1.104-1(b), Income Tax Regs.
Consequently, the benefits are not excludable from P’s
1999 gross income.
Elizabeth I. Cooke (specially recognized), for petitioner.
Richard J. Hassebrock, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
NIMS, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency of $9,148
in petitioner’s Federal income tax for 1999 and an accuracy-
related penalty of $1,810 pursuant to section 6662(a) for 1999.
Respondent concedes the accuracy-related penalty and the sole
issue for our consideration is whether petitioner properly
excluded from gross income disability payments that she received
under the Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio. Both
parties have moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 121.
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
sections of the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the tax year
in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of
Practice and Procedure.
Background
At the time of the filing of the petition, petitioner
resided in Columbus, Ohio.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011