- 7 -7
the First Circuit found, on similar facts, that the phrase "no
interest" is ambiguous and could mean that there is no interest
in addition to the interest implicit in the settlement amount.
See also Delaney v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-378; Forest v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-377, affd. without published
opinion 104 F.3d 348 (1st Cir. 1996). Second, the stipulations
are not part of the settlement and do not relate to the
allocation of settlement proceeds. They are merely requests for
the court to dismiss the respective actions without imposing
interest or costs. Accordingly, a portion of both the Rozpads'
and the DiBiasios' settlement is allocable to prejudgment
interest.
Respondent determined that a portion of each settlement must
be allocated to statutory interest in the same ratio that
statutory interest bore to the total judgment. The facts and
case law support respondent's determination. Each settlement
occurred after petitioners received awards of damages and
prejudgment interest. In Delaney, 99 F.3d at 25-26, the Court of
Appeals affirmed this Court's finding that the prejudgment
interest component of a settlement was in the same proportion as
the prejudgment interest that was added to the court's damage
award. See Robinson v. Commissioner, 70 F.3d 34, 38 (5th Cir.
1995), affg. in part, revg. in part and remanding in part 102
T.C. 116 (1994); see also United States v. Burke, 504 U.S. 229,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011