- 14 - litigation and questionable prospects for recovery on his contract claims. In a similar situation, the taxpayers in Fono v. Commissioner, supra at 698-699, initiated litigation because of their disappointment with a contract under which they expected to receive over $1 million. The taxpayers requested the allocation in the settlement agreement to include personal injury to avoid taxation on the amount. The defendants in Fono adamantly refused to make such an allocation and did not recognize any liability in tort. In recognizing the economic realities of the litigation, this Court held that the entire amount was taxable. Personal injury was 1 of 10 causes of action referred to in the settlement agreement and 1 of 17 causes of action in the second amended complaint. The mere mention of a physical injury in a complaint does not, by itself, serve to exclude the recovery of gross income under section 104(a)(2). Petitioners argue that the settlement was finalized based on the stipulation between the parties to allow the second amended complaint to be filed, adding a claim for personal injury. This agreement is insufficient to meet the requirements under section 104(a)(2). The settlement agreement and the second amended complaint together do not show that the actual basis of settlement was on account of personal injury. In fact, petitioner’s counsel admitted in his cover letter to the defendants’ counsel that the second amendedPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011