- 10 -
includes "the compromise settlement of any and all legal,
evidentiary, discovery, and document production issues regarding
Claim No. 554."3 Thus, the entire award petitioner received in
settlement of her title VII claim against State Farm represented a
compromise and settlement of petitioner's rights pursuant to her
claim against State Farm alleging discrimination under title VII.4
In sum, no portion of petitioner's settlement award was
attributable to a claim based upon tort or tort type rights. Thus,
we hold that petitioner improperly excluded the settlement proceeds
($202,877) from her 1992 gross income. Commissioner v. Schleier,
supra at 337; United States v. Burke, supra at 242. Accordingly,
we sustain respondent's determination.
We note that our opinion herein is consistent with prior
decisions of this Court, which also held that settlement proceeds
received pursuant to the Kraszewski litigation were not excludable
from gross income pursuant to section 104(a)(2). See Gillette v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-301; Hayes v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1997-213; Hardin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-202; Raney v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-200; Clark v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
3 Claim No. 554 was the identification of petitioner's
claim against State Farm in the class action suit.
4 As petitioner's claim arose in 1979 and the class
action suit was filed in that year, the amendments to title VII
made by sec. 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub. L. 102-
166, 105 Stat. 1072-1074, do not apply. Landgraf v. USI Film
Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (1994).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011