- 6 -
of back pay under Title VII may be excludable where the taxpayer
was not employed by the defendant at the time of the
discrimination.
Petitioner's contention fails to grasp the central thrust of
Burke. In Burke, the Supreme Court concluded that Title VII does
not provide remedies that redress tort type personal injuries.
That rationale does not depend upon the particular circumstances
of a taxpayer's claim under Title VII. All claims under Title
VII, including petitioner's, are subject to the same limited
range of damages. Consequently, we reject petitioner's
contention.
Petitioner also contends that remedies available to her
under other laws redressed tort type personal injuries and that
the consent decree was partially intended to settle these claims.
Petitioner emphasizes that the consent decree indicated that
State Farm was concerned about its liability under other laws.
Petitioner has not established, however, that the payment under
the consent decree was intended to settle petitioner's claims
relating to other laws. In addition, the consent decree failed
to allocate any portion of petitioner's recovery to the
settlement of other claims. Consequently, petitioner has failed
to prove that any part of the recovery is excludable. See Getty
v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 160, 175-176 (1988), affd. on this
issue, revd. on other issues 913 F.2d 1486 (9th Cir. 1990).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011