- 6 -
based on tort or tort type rights, including contract claims,
claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
(ADEA), Pub. L. 90-202, 81 Stat. 602, as amended 29 U.S.C. secs.
621-634 (1988), and claims under title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, Pub. L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241, 253, as amended 42
U.S.C. secs. 2000e-1 to -17 (1988). See, e.g., Commissioner v.
Schleier, supra at 336 (holding that settlements for claims made
under the ADEA are not based on tort or tort type rights for
purposes of section 104(a)(2)); United States v. Burke, 504 U.S.
229, 241 (1992) (holding awards of back wages under title VII do
not redress tort-like personal injury within the meaning of
section 104(a)(2)). Failure to show the specific amount of the
payment allocable to the claims of tort or tort-type damages for
personal injuries results in the entire amount being presumed not
to be excludable. See Taggi v. United States, 35 F.3d 93, 96 (2d
Cir. 1994); Getty v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 160, 175-176 (1988),
affd. as to this issue and revd. on other issues 913 F.2d 1486
(9th Cir. 1990).
Petitioner also argues that his employment with IBM never
actually ceased. Even if we assume that this is true, the
argument leads nowhere. Underlying this argument is petitioner's
view that only "severance pay" is taxable. But, petitioner must
show that there is some provision in the Internal Revenue Code
that exempts the amount that he received from taxation. Clearly
section 104(a)(2) does not. Petitioner does not point to, and we
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011