On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 7:55:03 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,

says...



On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 14:47:01 -0400, iBoaterer

wrote:



In article ,

says...



On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 12:34:17 -0500, Califbill

wrote:



wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 04:49:53 -0700 (PDT), True North

wrote:



Tax free??

No wonder 'merica is teetering on bankruptcy



Yup any fireman or cop who retires on disability is immune from state

or federal taxes on their pension.



BTW I am sad about my neighbor, He had a massive stroke last night and

did not wake up



RIP Les Stacho. We will miss you.



Only up to 50% is tax free. But here in California 90+% of firemen retire

on disability. Seems as if they could do the job for all 30 years, but

get.a disability rating on retirement. I thought Florida had no personal

income tax.



He was not paying ANY federal income tax.



Cite?



A legal decision that reaffirms this.

http://ericjohnltd.com/ericjohnltd/2...pension-issue/



Oh, man.....



"The IRS argued that the benefits paid after turning age 50 were taxable

retirement income. It cited Tateosian, TC Memo 2008-101, where the Tax

Court held that because a disabled pensioner?s disability benefits

effectively terminated under Minnesota law once he turned age 50 and

became a deemed service pensioner, his payments could no longer be

characterized as compensation for personal injuries under SS104(a) for

federal income tax purposes."

Keep reading:

"The Tax Court determined that the benefits were nontaxable and rejected the IRS’s reliance on Tateosian. Instead the Court looked to precedent from the Ninth Court, to which an Appeal case would be heard and determined that the payments were not retirement benefits because they were determined with reference to his age and years of service.

For purposes of qualifying for retirement, the fact that the plan deems time spent on disability as equivalent to time spent working does not change the treatment for federal income tax purposes. So if someone completed less than 20 years of service, they would not be eligible for retirement payments; therefore, the character of the payments are *nontaxable* disability payments for federal income tax purposes."

"Oh, man" is right..