- 13 -
stock he received from USI. This approach restored
Gregg to the position he was in prior to his dealings
with USI; a measure wholly consistent with the dictates
of Florida law. * * * [Id. at 1467.]
In sum, petitioners have failed to carry their burden to
“show that the damages were received ‘on account of personal
injuries or sickness.’” Commissioner v. Schleier, 515 U.S. at
337. Accordingly, we adhere to our original conclusion that
petitioners have failed to prove that the compensatory damages
awarded on the fraudulent inducement cause of action were
received on account of personal injuries within the meaning of
section 104(a)(2).
Petitioner’s Compensatory Damages for Tortious Interference With
a Business Relationship
Petitioners present similar conclusory arguments to support
their contention that the $43,050 jury award for tortious
interference with a business relationship was received on account
of personal injury. Their primary argument parallels an argument
that we have previously considered and rejected in the context of
petitioner’s damages award for fraudulent inducement:
petitioners argue that injuries suffered as a result of tortious
interference with business relationships are “inherently
personal, dignitary injuries.” Thus, petitioners contend that
the entire jury award on this cause of action is excludable under
section 104(a)(2).
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