- 6 -
are excludable under section 104(a)(2). United States v. Burke,
504 U.S. 229, 237 (1992); Robinson v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 116,
126 (1994), affd. in part, revd. in part 70 F.3d 34 (5th Cir.
1995). "[T]he critical question is, in lieu of what was the
settlement amount paid?" Bagley v. Commissioner, supra at 406.
Determination of the nature of the claim is factual. Bagley
v. Commissioner, supra; Stocks v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 1, 11
(1992). The most important element is the intent of the payor.
Robinson v. Commissioner, supra at 127.
Essential to petitioner's ability to satisfy the first
requirement is the existence of a claim "based upon tort or tort
type rights". See supra p. 5. The parties and the amicus curiae
have advanced extensive arguments as to whether such a claim must
have been a valid claim that was asserted prior to the
settlement. We are satisfied that the only requirement is that
there be a claim which is bona fide, not necessarily valid, i.e.,
sustainable. Taggi v. United States, 35 F.3d 93, 96 (2d Cir.
1994); Robinson v. Commissioner, supra at 126; Stocks v.
Commissioner, supra at 10. In this connection, we note that we
have held that claims for potential future personal injuries do
not qualify for exclusion under section 104(a). Roosevelt v.
Commissioner, 43 T.C 77 (1964); Starrels v. Commissioner, 35 T.C.
646 (1961), affd. 304 F.2d 574 (9th Cir. 1962). Such holdings
imply that there must be an existing claim. Moreover, while it
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011