Hughes A. and Marilyn B. Bagley - Page 22

                                                - 22 -                                                  

            the Supreme Court in Commissioner v. Schleier, 515 U.S. ____, 115 S.Ct. 2159                
            (1995).                                                                                     
            In the Schleier case, the taxpayer included as gross income the backpay                     
            portion, but not the liquidated damages portion, of a settlement award                      
            received under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA).  The                
            Commissioner sent the taxpayer a notice of deficiency determining that the                  
            taxpayer should have included the liquidated damages portion of his settlement              
            as gross income.  We found for the taxpayer, holding that the entire                        
            settlement was damages received "on account of personal injuries or sickness"               
            within the meaning of section 104(a)(2) and was, therefore, excludable from                 
            gross income, and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed.                      
            Commissioner v. Schleier, 26 F.3d 1119 (5th Cir. 1994).                                     
                  The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals.  The Supreme Court                   
            stated that the taxpayer argued that his damages were excluded from gross                   
            income since they were "damages received * * * on account of personal injuries              
            or sickness."  Commissioner v. Schleier, supra at 2162.  The Supreme Court                  
            rejected this argument, stating that the "plain language of [section                        
            104(a)(2)] undermines [the taxpayer's] contention."  Commissioner v. Schleier,              
            supra at 2163.  The Supreme Court concluded that each element of the                        
            settlement must satisfy the requirement under section 104(a)(2), that the                   
            damages were received "on account of personal injuries or sickness."                        
            Commissioner v. Schleier, supra at 2164.  Since the backpay was not directly                
            caused by the injury, section 104(a)(2) did not apply.  The Court reasoned:                 
                  In short, section 104(a)(2) does not permit the exclusion of * * *                    
                  [the taxpayer's] back wages                                                           
                  because the recovery of back wages was not "on                                        
                  account of" any personal injury and because no                                        
                  personal injury affected the amount of back wages recovered.                          
            Commissioner v. Schleier, supra at 2164.                                                    
                  The taxpayer argued that liquidated damages fit within section                        
            104(a)(2), citing Overnight Motor Transp. Co. v. Missel, 316 U.S. 572, 583                  





Page:  Previous  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011