- 16 -
section 104(a)(3). Additionally, a fact deemed admitted under
Rule 90 is that petitioner did not pay premiums toward his
insurance policy. Therefore, the disability payments made by
Connecticut General to petitioner are not excluded from
petitioner’s gross income by section 104(a)(3). See Tuka v.
Commissioner, supra at 4; sec. 1.104-1(d), Income Tax Regs.; see
also Emerson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-137; Rabideau v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-230.
In the alternative, petitioner argues that the exception
under section 105(c) applies because the amounts he received were
“based on the type and severity of his injuries suffered by
himself and not because of his position, salary, investment or
other extraneous factors related to his company or employment.”
Section 105(c) provides an exception to includability for
amounts received by an employee through accident or health
insurance to the extent attributable to employer contributions
that were not includable in an employee’s gross income. Under
section 105(c), amounts attributable to employer contributions
are excluded from gross income to the extent such amounts
(1) constitute “payment for the permanent loss or loss of use of
a member or function of the body, or the permanent disfigurement”
of the taxpayer, and (2) are computed “with reference to the
nature of the injury without regard to the period the employee is
absent from work.”
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011