- 20 -
Recovery for the Defendants' interference with the class members'
economic advantage as employees is similarly not on account of
personal injury. See Commissioner v. Schleier, supra, United
States v. Burke, supra, Robinson v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. at
126. Petitioner asserts that individual class members did not
have a direct contractual relationship with the Defendants. Even
if such assertion is true, class members based their claim for
interference with prospective economic advantage on an
employer/employee relationship. Their complaint sought remedy
for the Defendants' alleged wrongful interference with their
rights "to enjoy the fruits and advantages of their industries
and efforts as employees". This is further evidenced by the
November 1991 notice to the class members, which stated:
The remedy that we would be asking for [is]
compensation for losses in wages and benefits for some
appropriate period of time but not less than the
duration of the current contract * * * [Emphasis
added.]
Clearly, recovery for economic injury based on such a
contractual type claim is excluded from the scope of section
104(a)(2). See Robinson v. Commissioner, supra, and cases cited
therein.
The Plaintiffs also sought punitive damages for the harm
suffered as a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful conduct.
Contrary to petitioner's suggestion, the exclusion provided by
section 104(a)(2), as in effect for the year in issue, does not
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011