Robert Henderson - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         
          not be treated as a physical injury or physical sickness” for               
          purposes of section 104(a)(2) (except for damages not in excess             
          of the amount paid for medical care attributable to emotional               
          distress).  Prasil v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-100.                    
          According to the legislative history of section 104(a)(2), “the             
          term emotional distress includes symptoms (e.g., insomnia,                  
          headaches, stomach disorders) which may result from such                    
          emotional distress.”  H. Conf. Rept. 104-737, at 301 n.56 (1996),           
          1996-3 C.B. 741, 1041 n.56.                                                 
               Generally, damages are excludable from gross income if they            
          satisfy two requirements.  The Supreme Court in Commissioner v.             
          Schleier, 515 U.S. 323, 336 (1995), established those                       
          requirements as:                                                            
               First, the taxpayer must demonstrate that the                          
               underlying cause of action giving rise to the recovery                 
               is ‘based upon tort or tort type rights’; and second,                  
               the taxpayer must show that the damages were received                  
               ‘on account of personal injuries or sickness.’  * * *                  
               The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the court             
          to which this case is appealable, held prior to the amendment of            
          section 104(a)(2) that defamation may be considered a personal              
          injury for purposes of section 104(a)(2).  Roemer v.                        
          Commissioner, 716 F.2d 693 (9th Cir. 1983), revg. 79 T.C. 398               
          (1982).  However, the amendment to section 104(a)(2), which does            
          not otherwise change the section 104(a)(2) analysis set forth in            
          Schleier, now requires that the payments be “on account of                  






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011