- 10 -
benefits awarded by the Board of Appeals for injuries sustained
by petitioner in the workplace, rather than “retirement”
benefits. To support this, petitioner points to the language of
the Board of Appeals’ order, which awarded petitioner “ordinary
disability” benefits rather than “ordinary disability retirement”
benefits. Petitioner asserts that the Board of Appeals’ order of
“ordinary disability” benefits reflects the fact that petitioner
did not “retire” but was “terminated” from his job with Baltimore
County, and that petitioner, who was 50 years old at the time he
left his job, was ineligible for “retirement” under the ERS.
It is clear on the record before us that petitioner applied
for, and received, disability retirement benefits pursuant to the
ERS. The ERS includes provisions that allow for retirement and
the receipt of retirement benefits due to mental or physical
impairment, in addition to retirement based on age or years of
service. The Board of Appeals’ opinion found that petitioner was
permanently incapacitated for the further performance of his
duties and “deserving of ordinary disability retirement
benefits”, as delineated under the ERS in Baltimore County Code
section 23-53 (1988). The Board of Appeals’ order reflects this
finding, despite omission of the word “retirement”.
The taxation of disability retirement benefits, such as
those paid to petitioner under the ERS, requires examination of
sections 72, 104, and 105, and the regulations thereunder.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011