- The Petitioner, a dual member, is entitled to have the earnings cap outlined in G.L. c. 32, s. 91(b) based on the salaries of both her full-time Winchester position and her part-time Arlington position.
Matthew Frazier v. Barnstable County Retirement Board & Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission (PERAC), CR-06-190 (DALA, 2008)Holds that because disability retiree had controlling interests in close corporations, the corporations' retained earnings were earned income for puposes of Section 91A. Half of the rental income received by retiree from one of his corporations was Section 91A earned income because he and his wife jointly purchased the rented equipment. The different assessment made by the Barnstable County Retirement Board could not trump the determinations made by PERAC, but the case was remanded to PERAC to perform some re-calculations.
Matthew Frazier v. Barnstable County Retirement Board and the Public Employee Retirement Administration Comm'n, CR-06-0190 (CRAB, 2008)Holds that date of receipt of decision appealed from starts appeal period; post-mark date for appeal filed by U.S. Mail is date of filing with CRAB; proceeds of sale of a close corporation owned by petitioner is earned income for purposes of Sec. 91A; retained earnings of a close corporation owned by the petitioner are not earned income for purposes of Sec. 91A; and allocated rental income from rental of equipment to close corporation owned by petitioner is earned income for purposes of Sec. 91A.
- The Melrose Retirement Board is entitled to recoup excessive earnings despite the fact that payments made to the Petitioner, a retiree, were derived from private entities and not public employment.
- The petitioner was required to refund a portion of his 2005 disability retirement allowance because he had excess earnings within the meaning of G.L. c. 32, s. 91A for the 2005 calendar year.