- 16 -
settlement proceeds for any particular claim. However, the joint
stipulation of settlement provided that an independent trustee
would determine appropriate amounts to compensate individual
class members for their "demonstrated economic harm". Guidelines
outlined in the joint stipulation of settlement based economic
harm on the loss or reduction of wages resulting from the loss of
employment. Personal injury was not considered. Therefore, the
settlement agreement indicates that the Defendants paid the
settlement proceeds on account of economic harm arising from the
deprivation of a class member's opportunity to earn wages. Such
recovery is clearly not on account of personal injury.
We shall not, however, limit our inquiry to the joint
stipulation of settlement. We shall consider other factors to
ascertain the intent of the Defendants in paying the settlement
proceeds. See Knuckles v. Commissioner, supra; Robinson v.
Commissioner, supra; Stocks v. Commissioner, supra.
B. The Complaint
When payments are received pursuant to a settlement
agreement from which we cannot clearly discern why the payments
were made, the underlying complaint is normally examined as an
indicator of the payor's intent. See Robinson v. Commissioner,
supra. Logic dictates that defendants will ordinarily determine
their liability by taking into account the allegations made in
the complaint. See Threlkeld v. Commissioner, supra; Church v.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011