- 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