- 7 - loss of consortium. To the extent CWRU’s payment was in exchange for Mr. Reisman’s tenure, the settlement proceeds would not be excludable from gross income under section 104(a)(2). See Kurowski v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-149, affd. 917 F.2d 1033 (7th Cir. 1990). To the extent any of CWRU’s payment was for breach of contract, the settlement proceeds would not be excludable from gross income under section 104(a)(2). See Robinson v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 116, 126 (1994), affd. in part and revd. in part on another issue 70 F.3d 34 (5th Cir. 1995). Finally, to the extent any of CWRU’s payment was for punitive damages, then the proceeds would not be excludable from gross income under section 104(a)(2). See O’Gilvie v. United States, 519 U.S. 79, 90 (1996). In short, the nature of most of petitioners’ claims that were resolved as part of the settlement agreement are nontort type and would not be excluded from gross income under section 104(a)(2). Some of petitioners’ common law claims are tort type claims. Petitioners argue that, as a result of res judicata, the only claims outstanding at the time of the settlement were personal injury tort claims. We disagree. The settlement agreement provides that petitioners are being compensated for the compromise of disputed claims and for Mr. Reisman’s resignation and relinquishment of his tenure rights.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011