- 8 -
Where amounts are received pursuant to a settlement
agreement, the nature of the claim that was the actual basis for
settlement controls whether such amounts are excludable under
section 104(a)(2). United States v. Burke, 504 U.S. 229, 237
(1992). Determination of the nature of the claim is a factual
inquiry and is generally made by reference to the settlement
agreement. Robinson v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 116, 126 (1994),
affd. in part and revd. in part 70 F.3d 34 (5th Cir. 1995).
"[W]here an amount is paid in settlement of a case, the critical
question is, in lieu of what was the settlement amount paid".
Bagley v. Commissioner, 105 T.C. 396, 406 (1995), affd. 121 F.3d
393 (8th Cir. 1997). An important factor in determining the
validity of the agreement is the "intent of the payor" in making
the payment. Knuckles v. Commissioner, 349 F.2d 610, 613 (10th
Cir. 1965), affg. T.C. Memo. 1964-33. If the payor's intent
cannot be clearly discerned from the settlement agreement, the
intent of the payor must be determined from all the facts and
circumstances of the case, including the complaint filed and
details surrounding the litigation. Robinson v. Commissioner,
supra at 127.
Although the taxpayer must show that the damages were
received "on account of personal injuries or sickness" under the
second requirement of Commissioner v. Schleier, supra, subsequent
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011