- 11 -
law, the Supreme Court in Burke looked to the remedy that was
addressed by title VII.
Petitioner also argues that Burke should be read narrowly to
apply to cases based on economic acts that result predominately
in economic harm. Petitioner contends that in cases where common
law tort remedies exist, Burke should not apply. Petitioner, in
an attempt to distinguish Burke, points out that the taxpayers’
sole claim in that case was for damages based on economic rights,
whereas petitioner had a tort claim at common law. We disagree
with petitioner since the majority opinion in Burke did not
address possibilities outside of title VII.
More importantly, petitioner’s recovery here was based
entirely on title VII, and no evidence was presented establishing
that petitioner had any other remedies at common law. Even
assuming petitioner did have other avenues of relief outside
title VII, petitioner chose to file a title VII action and is now
bound by the tax consequences that attach to recoveries under
title VII. We hold that the proceeds from petitioner’s title VII
award are not excluded from gross income under section 104(a)(2).
Excludability of Attorney’s Fees
The next issue for our consideration is whether petitioner
is entitled to exclude from her gross income that portion of her
title VII proceeds paid as attorney’s fees. Petitioner argues
that if section 104(a)(2) does not apply and her title VII
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011