- 10 -
received was substantially less than that determined by respondent.
For the reasons hereinafter stated, we sustain respondent's
determinations.
We first decide the amount of the judgment award, and
accompanying interest, allocable to petitioner. In this respect,
the record is devoid of any indication as to how the judgment award
is to be allocated among the various plaintiffs in the suit against
South Isle. Respondent determined that the judgment was awarded
solely to Mr. Sullivan, and consequently, the interest accompanying
that award is taxable solely to him. Because of petitioner's
failure to satisfy his burden of proving otherwise, we accept
respondent's determination in this regard. See Rule 142(a); Sodoma
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-275, affd. 139 F.3d 899 (5th Cir.
1998).
Petitioner maintains that because Mrs. Sullivan ultimately
received approximately one-third of the net amount of the personal
injury award, one-third of the interest should not be taxable to
him. We disagree. Mrs. Sullivan received a payment of $200,000
not as a party to the suit against South Isle but as her share of
the marital estate. Accordingly, her entitlement to the $200,000
arises from an event separate from the satisfaction of the judgment
against South Isle. Now we turn our attention to deciding the year
in which the interest is includable in petitioner's gross income.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011