- 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