- 7 -
that restricts the payment of benefits to cases of employment-
related disabilities. The second portion of the California
statute, which addresses injuries arising during the course of
judicial service, is in the nature of a workers’ compensation act
under section 104(a)(1). The taxpayer in Byrne received his
benefits under the second portion of the California statute, and
not under the first portion of the statute, which conditions
recovery on years of service, and is not in the nature of a
workers’ compensation act.
Petitioner seeks to liken her case to Byrne v. Commissioner,
supra, in which, as above described, the taxpayer prevailed.
Petitioner argues that it is basically a matter of semantics that
prompts respondent to disallow petitioner’s deduction. We
disagree.
Petitioner would have us figuratively construe the Ohio
statute so as to make it analogous to a dual-purpose statute of
the type described in Byrne v. Commissioner, supra. This we are
not at liberty to do. The statute is not of dual-purpose in
regard to petitioner because she was not employed as a law
enforcement officer. As to petitioner, only the first clause of
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. sec. 145.35(B) applied, a clause which
provides identical benefits regardless of the circumstances in
which the disability occurred, and is simply not a statute in the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011