De Paolis v. Commissioner

69 T.C. 283, 1977 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 18
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedNovember 28, 1977
DocketDocket No. 1227-76
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 69 T.C. 283 (De Paolis v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
De Paolis v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 283, 1977 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 18 (tax 1977).

Opinions

OPINION

Dawson, Judge:

Respondent determined a deficiency of $268.06 in petitioners’ Federal income tax for the year 1972. The only issue presented for decision is whether petitioner Thomas A. DePaolis, an Air Force officer who retired on disability prior to reaching mandatory retirement age, is entitled to a retirement income credit of $268 for the year 1972 under the provisions of section 37, I.R.C. 1954,1 for income received in excess of the claimed sick pay exclusion provided by section 105(d).

All of the facts are stipulated and are so found. The pertinent facts are summarized below.

Thomas A. DePaolis and Aurora A. DePaolis are husband and wife whose legal residence was in Oceanside, Calif., when they filed their petition in this case. They filed their joint Federal income tax return for the year 1972, and an amended return for that year, with the Western Service Center, Ogden, Utah.

Thomas A. DePaolis (petitioner) retired on physical disability, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 1201, from the United States Air Force on September 1, 1967, with the rank of lieutenant colonel. He retired with a 10-percent disability rating. He then had 23 years, 9 months, and 28 days of active military service for the purposes of retirement.2

The mandatory retirement age for a lieutenant colonel in the Air Force is the earlier of 40 years3 of service or 60 years of age. Petitioner was born on January 17, 1918, and at the time of his retirement on disability from the Air Force he was 49 years of age.

On his 1972 Federal income tax return the petitioner deducted $5,200 as “sick pay” under the provisions of section 105(d) of the Code.4 A retirement income credit of $137 was also claimed on the return. On his amended Federal income tax return for 1972 the petitioner increased the claimed retirement income credit to $268.

In his statutory notice of deficiency dated January 8, 1976, respondent disallowed the claimed retirement income credit on the ground that petitioner’s “earned income exceeds the maximum amount of retirement income.”

Petitioner contends that he is entitled to the retirement income credit on all amounts received in excess of the sick pay exclusion. To the contrary, respondent’s position is that when a former military officer retires on disability prior to reaching mandatory retirement age, he is not entitled to a retirement income credit on amounts received in excess of the sick pay exclusion.

The issue confronting us in this case has not been previously decided by any court.5 Respondent relies on Rev. Rui. 69-12, 1969-1 C.B. 23, which ruled that the amount of a disability annuity received by a Federal employee under the Civil Service Retirement Act prior to normal retirement age that exceeds the sick pay exclusion under section 105(d) of the Code does not qualify as retirement income under section 37(c)(2). This was based on the retirement income credit which was in effect prior to the year 1977. The rationale is that the disability annuity payments received by a Federal employee who has retired prior to normal retirement age are treated as “wages or payments in lieu of wages” for the purposes of section 105(d), and do not qualify as “retirement income” within the meaning of section 37(c)(2).

Section 376 provides a credit against the tax imposed by chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 in the case of an individual who receives in the taxable year retirement income as defined in section 37(c) and who meets the eligibility requirements of section 37(b).

Section 37(c)(2) defines “retirement income” in the case of an individual who has not attained the age of 65 before the close of the taxable year as meaning income from pensions and annuities to the extent included in gross income, but only to the extent such income does not represent compensation for personal services rendered during the taxable year.

For taxable years beginning after December 31, 1954, amounts received from the retirement system established by the United States for members of the Armed Forces of the United States are included within the definition for retirement income. Sec. 1.37-3(a)(3), Income Tax Regs. The legislative history relating to this change made by Pub. L. 299 is set forth in S. Rept. 1142,84th Cong., 1st Sess. 1(1955), as follows:

Your committee’s bill would remove the discrimination existing under present law against members of the Armed Forces by allowing them to claim the retirement income tax credit under the same circumstances and to the same extent as retired civil servants and others under a public retirement system. * * * [Emphasis supplied.]

Thus, to carry out the intent of Congress, section 37 should be applied to members of the Armed Forces who retire on disability prior to mandatory retirement age in same manner as it applies to Federal civil servants.

Although the literal language of section 37(c)(2) (now section 37(e)(4)(B)) would seem to favor the petitioner, we think the words “pensions and annuities” as used in section 37 refer only to those whose taxability is determined under section 72.

Disability annuity payments received by a Federal employee before normal retirement age under the Civil Service Retirement Act are treated as “wages or payments in lieu of wages” for the purposes of section 105(d).7 Section 1.105-4(a)(3)(i)(A), Income Tax Regs., provides, in part, that if a plan provides that an employee, who is absent from work on account of a personal injury or sickness, will receive a disability pension or annuity as long as he is disabled, section 105(d) is applicable to any payments that such an employee receives under the plan before he reaches normal retirement age.

Section 1.72-15(b), Income Tax Regs., provides the general rule that section 72 of the Code does not apply to any amount received as an accident or health benefit, and the tax treatment of any such amount shall be determined under sections 104 and 105.

All of the disability annuity ($9,130) received by the petitioner is considered to be “wages or payments in lieu of wages” when received prior to his mandatory retirement age. Therefore, it is governed by the provisions of section 105(d). For tax purposes the disability annuity cannot be fractured into part “payments in lieu of wages” and part “retirement income.” There must be consistent treatment. The provisions of section 72 regarding the classification of amounts received as income from pensions and annuities do not become effective until he reaches the mandatory retirement age.

Usually when a member of the Armed Forces reaches retirement age, what he receives in practical effect is a pension or an annuity. This petitioner would have received “retired pay” if he had chosen to retire for length of service under 10 U.S.C. 8911. But he did not do so, and he did not receive retired pay.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Exxon Corp. v. Commissioner
102 T.C. No. 33 (U.S. Tax Court, 1994)
French v. Commissioner
1991 T.C. Memo. 196 (U.S. Tax Court, 1991)
Turney v. Commissioner
1987 T.C. Memo. 74 (U.S. Tax Court, 1987)
De Biasi v. Commissioner
1983 T.C. Memo. 161 (U.S. Tax Court, 1983)
Chosiad v. Commissioner
1980 T.C. Memo. 408 (U.S. Tax Court, 1980)
Robbins v. Commissioner
1980 T.C. Memo. 191 (U.S. Tax Court, 1980)
Woodford v. Commissioner
71 T.C. 991 (U.S. Tax Court, 1979)
Brownholtz v. Commissioner
71 T.C. 332 (U.S. Tax Court, 1978)
Estate of Schelberg v. Commissioner
70 T.C. 690 (U.S. Tax Court, 1978)
De Paolis v. Commissioner
69 T.C. 283 (U.S. Tax Court, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
69 T.C. 283, 1977 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 18, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-paolis-v-commissioner-tax-1977.