Diana T. Visco - Page 14




                                       - 14 -                                         

          through a settlement agreement entered into in lieu of such                 
          prosecution.”  Sec. 1.104-1(c), Income Tax Regs.  In order for              
          damages to be excludable from gross income under section                    
          104(a)(2), the taxpayer must demonstrate that:  (1) The                     
          underlying cause of action is based upon tort or tort type                  
          rights, and (2) the damages were received on account of personal            
          injuries or sickness.  See Commissioner v. Schleier, 515 U.S.               
          323, 337 (1995).                                                            
               The record in this case shows that petitioner’s dispute with           
          the district was over her dismissal for failure to comply with              
          the directives of her superiors.  There is nothing in this record           
          that would indicate that the dispute involved a tortlike action             
          or a personal injury.  As stated in the opinion of the secretary            
          of education:                                                               
               The District’s dismissal action is based upon a                        
               conclusion that Visco persistently and willfully                       
               violated the school laws when she failed to comply with                
               requests made by the Principal, Assistant                              
               Superintendent and Superintendent.  As correctly                       
               pointed out by Visco, the District’s action involves                   
               three elements, all of which must be satisfied in order                
               for us to uphold the District’s action.  The district                  
               has the burden of proving by substantial evidence that                 
               Visco’s actions were 1) persistent; 2) willful; and 3)                 
               violations of school law.  “Substantial evidence has                   
               been defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable                 
               mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”                
               * * *                                                                  
               Recovery of backpay in this context does not fall within the           
          exclusion of section 104(a)(2) because it does not satisfy the              






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