Reina Martinez - Page 6

                                        - 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