Tonia V. Cates - Page 4




                                        - 3 -                                         
          Rockford violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as             
          amended, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991.  Petitioner sought               
          relief in the amount of back pay and prejudgment interest, and              
          “compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting            
          from the unlawful employment practices * * * including                      
          humiliation”.                                                               
               On January 22, 1998, petitioner and Rockford entered into a            
          settlement agreement.  The agreement stated in pertinent part:              
               [Rockford] shall pay to * * * [petitioner] the gross sum of            
               Forty-Five Thousand Dollars ($45,000) in the form of two               
               checks made payable to * * * [petitioner].  One check, in              
               settlement of * * * [petitioner’s] claim for back pay                  
               damages, shall be in the gross amount of Ten Thousand                  
               Dollars ($10,000), less all applicable withholdings,                   
               including FICA.  The second check, in settlement of * * *              
               [petitioner’s] claim for compensatory damages for emotional            
               injuries, shall be in the gross amount of Thirty-Five                  
               Thousand Dollars ($35,000).  [Emphasis added.]                         
               In preparing her 1998 Federal income tax return, petitioner            
          excluded the $35,000 damage award on the grounds that it was                
          received in compensation of her “emotional distress due to                  
          physical sickness” and was excludable under section 104(a)(2).              
          The taxability of the $10,000 petitioner received as back pay is            
          not in dispute.                                                             
                                     Discussion                                       
               Section 61 provides that “gross income means all income from           
          whatever source derived”.  Gross income is an inclusive term with           
          broad scope, designed by Congress to “exert * * * ‘the full                 
          measure of its taxing power.’”  Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass              





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011