Hughes A. and Marilyn B. Bagley - Page 25

                                                - 25 -                                                  

            to deter future malicious actions.  In Team Cent., Inc. v. Teamco, Inc., 271                
            N.W.2d 914, 925 (Iowa 1978), the Iowa Supreme Court stated that the purpose of              
            punitive damages is to punish the wrongdoer rather than to compensate the                   
            victim.  This case is in line with previous cases by the Supreme Court of                   
            Iowa.  In Meyer v. Nottger, 241 N.W.2d 911, 922 (Iowa 1976), the court stated:              
                        Exemplary damages are not intended to be compensatory.  An                      
                  award of exemplary damages is never made as a matter of right, but                    
                  depends upon whether under the facts in a particular case such                        
                  award is appropriate in order to punish an offending party or                         
                  discourage others from similar wrongful conduct. [Citations                           
                  omitted.]                                                                             
            The court in Meyer v. Nottger, supra, concluded that the noncompensatory                    
            nature of punitive damages is well established under Iowa law.                              
                  The Supreme Court stated in Commissioner v. Schleier, supra at 2165--                 
                  We have already concluded that the liquidated damages provisions                      
                  of the ADEA were a significant departure from those in the FLSA *                     
                  * * and we explicitly held in Thurston "Congress intended for                         
                  liquidated damages to be punitive in nature."  Id., at 125, 105                       
                  S.Ct. at 624.  [Citations and fn. ref. omitted.]                                      

            We conclude that in Commissioner v. Schleier, supra, the Supreme Court                      
            effectively overruled the part of our holding and that of the Court of Appeals              
            for the Sixth Circuit in Horton v. Commissioner, supra, that since the claim                
            as originally made was one for a personal injury or a tortlike claim, even if               
            the punitive damages received were as punishment for malicious actions and an               
            example to deter others from such malicious action, they are excludable from                
            income under section 104(a)(2).  We will, therefore, no longer follow our                   
            opinion in Horton v. Commissioner, supra, to the extent that it holds that                  
            punitive damages which are not compensatory in nature are excludable from                   
            income under section 104(a)(2).  We, therefore, hold that the $1 million                    
            received by petitioner in 1987, composed of $500,000 received on April 23,                  
            1987, pursuant to the judgment entered by the District Court and the $500,000               
            received on September 8, 1987, as part of the settlement of the remaining                   







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