- 13 -
ourselves whether Harris paid any portion of the $2,315,000 on
account of personal injuries or sickness. We answer those
questions “No”. Harris paid petitioner none of that amount “by
reason of, or because of, * * * [a tortlike claim for] personal
injuries”. O’Gilvie v. United States, 519 U.S. at 83.
Petitioner’s recovery of that amount arose out of his employment
agreement with CGC, and the $2,315,000 that petitioner received
as compensation was slightly less than the approximate amount of
salary, incentive compensation, and supplemental compensation
that petitioner claimed he was entitled to by virtue of CGC’s
breach of his employment agreement with it. Moreover, petitioner
listed in the questionnaire no claim for damages from a personal
injury, classifying the total amount that he was pursuing through
the lawsuit as that from a nonpersonal injury, and the jury
awarded the $2,315,000 to petitioner as damages for loss of past
and future compensation and employment benefits. Under the facts
at hand, we conclude that petitioner received the portion of the
$2,315,000 attributable to the torts as “‘legal injuries of an
economic character’”, and, accordingly, that the recovery of that
portion was not for personal tortlike injuries. United States v.
Burke, supra at 239 (quoting Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422
U.S. 405, 418 (1975)); see also Commissioner v. Schleier, 515
U.S. at 331 (economic injuries are not personal injuries for
purposes of section 104(a)(2)); Fabry v. Commissioner, 111 T.C.
305 (1998); Robinson v. Commissioner, supra at 126 (section
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011