38 C.F.R. § 3.251

Income of parents; dependency and indemnity compensation

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Annual income limitations and rates. (1) Dependency and indemnity compensation is not payable to a parent or parents whose annual income exceeds the limitations set forth in 38 U.S.C. 1315 (b), (c), or (d).

(2) Where there is only one parent, and the parent has remarried and is living with his or her spouse, dependency and indemnity compensation will be paid under either the formula in 38 U.S.C. 1315(b)(1) or the formula in 38 U.S.C. 1315(d), whichever will provide the greater monthly rate of dependency and indemnity compensation. The total combined annual income of the parent and spouse will be counted.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1315)

(3) Where the claim is based on service in the Commonwealth Army of the Philippines, or as a guerrilla or as a Philippine Scout under section 14, Pub. L. 190, 79th Congress, the income limitation will be at a rate of $0.50 for each dollar. See § 3.100(b).

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 107)

(4) If the remarriage of a parent has been terminated, or the parent is separated from his or her spouse, the rate of dependency and indemnity compensation for the parent will be that which would be payable if there were one parent alone or two parents not living together, whichever is applicable.

(5) Where there are two parents living and only one parent has filed claim, the rate of dependency and indemnity compensation will be that which would be payable if both parents had filed claim.

(b) Basic rule. Payments of any kind or from any source will be counted as income unless specifically excluded. Income will be counted for the calendar year in which it is received and total income for the full calendar year will be considered except as provided in § 3.260.

[28 FR 29, Jan. 1, 1963, as amended at 31 FR 14455, Nov. 10, 1966; 40 FR 16065, Apr. 9, 1975; 41 FR 15411, Apr. 13, 1976; 60 FR 18355, Apr. 11, 1995]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1998–2008 · leading case: Jones v. West, 12 Vet. App. 98 (Vet. App. 1998).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Jones v. West, 12 Vet. App. 98 (Vet. App. 1998). · cites it 4× “38 C.F.R. § 3.251 (1949) (emphasis added).”

Carl v. Lamb v. James B. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 227 (Vet. App. 2008). · cites it 8× “Ante at 11; see 38 C.F.R. § 3.251 (a) (1957). I respectfully disagree, however, with the majority's determination that the appellant raised a separate theory of CUE based on Hyson, which the Board may not consider in the first instance.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.