-11- States, supra at 865. In making this determination, we must examine the terms of the agreement. Id. at 863. In particular, we examine the agreement language that “all Settlement Proceeds * * * [were] paid * * * on account of personal injuries.” Petitioner contends that this sentence irrefutably proves that part of the liquidated damages were received on account of her personal injuries. Petitioner further contends that under Bagley v. Commissioner, 105 T.C. 396, 406 (1995), affd. 121 F.3d 393 (8th Cir. 1997), we must accept the terms of the parties’ agreement unless facts and circumstances deem otherwise. Respondent counters that liquidated damages in a FLSA lawsuit, by their very nature, are not and cannot be on account of personal injuries. See Overnight Motor Transp. Co. v. Missel, supra at 583-584. Rather, liquidated damages compensate plaintiffs for back wages and incidental costs. Id. In light of this, respondent contends that the inclusion of this language was a “naked attempt [by the plaintiffs] to bring the proceeds under * * * section 104(a)(2).” Despite petitioner’s contention that we must accept the agreement’s terms, we cannot blindly accept labels which parties attach to transactions. See Robinson v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 116 (1994), affd. in part, revd. in part 70 F.3d 34 (5th Cir. 1995); Peaco v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-122. MorePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011