- 8 - the distributions were paid on account of an industrial injury, they are excludable from gross income under section 104(a)(1). State law creates legal interests and rights; the Federal revenue acts designate when and how interests or rights, so created, shall be taxed. United States v. Mitchell, 403 U.S. 190, 197 (1971); see also Estate of Posner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-112. The Form 1099-R issued by the State of California is evidence that the State determined that petitioner’s legal right to the distributions were not from an industrial injury and that the distributions were made under Cal. Govt. Code sec. 21150. The Court’s duty is to ascertain when and how such legal right, i.e., the distributions, will be taxed. See Morgan v. Commissioner, 309 U.S. 78, 80 (1940). Petitioner has not offered any evidence to show why the distributions are not of the type that is taxable. Therefore, the distributions are includable in her gross income. Sec. 61(a). Petitioner also argues that under Kane v. United States, 43 F.3d 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994), the California Employees’ Retirement Law is in the nature of a workmen’s compensation act because it is a “dual-purpose statute” that provides payment for both work- related and non-work related disabilities. Petitioner’s argument, however, is unpersuasive. Even if the California Employees’ Retirement Law is a “dual purpose statute”, petitionerPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 10, 2007