Salvatore J. D'Amico and Shirley E. D'Amico - Page 14




                                       - 14 -                                         

          The regulations under section 104(a)(2) restate the statutory               
          language of that section and further provide:                               
               The term “damages received (whether by suit or agree-                  
               ment)” means an amount received (other than workmen’s                  
               compensation) through prosecution of a legal suit or                   
               action based upon tort or tort type rights, or through                 
               a settlement agreement entered into in lieu of such                    
               prosecution.  [Sec. 1.104-1(c), Income Tax Regs.]                      
               Where damages are received pursuant to a settlement agree-             
          ment, such as is the case here, the nature of the claim that was            
          the actual basis for settlement controls whether such damages are           
          to be excluded from income under section 104(a)(2).  See United             
          States v. Burke, supra at 237.  The crucial question is “in lieu            
          of what was the settlement amount paid?”  Bagley v. Commissioner,           
          105 T.C. 396, 406 (1995), affd. 121 F.3d 393 (8th Cir. 1997).               
          The determination of the nature of the claim is factual.  See               
          Robinson v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 116, 127 (1994), affd. in                
          part, revd. in part, and remanded on another issue 70 F.3d 34               
          (5th Cir. 1995); Seay v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 32, 37 (1972).               
          Where there is a settlement agreement that is entered into in an            
          adversarial context, at arm’s length, and in good faith, that               
          determination is usually made by reference to such agreement.               
          See Knuckles v. Commissioner, 349 F.2d 610, 613 (10th Cir. 1965),           
          affg. T.C. Memo. 1964-33; Robinson v. Commissioner, supra.  If              
          the settlement agreement lacks express language stating what the            
          settlement amount was paid to settle, the intent of the payor is            






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011