- 2 - evidence that $25,130 was received on account of tort or tort type personal injuries. Therefore, the burden of proof with respect to that amount shifted to R, and R did not meet his burden of proof with respect to that amount. P did not produce credible evidence with respect to the amount that he received in excess of $25,130. Thus, P bears the burden of proof regarding the amount in excess of $25,130, and P has failed to prove that this amount is excludable from gross income under sec. 104(a)(2), I.R.C. Held, further, R is not equitably estopped from arguing that part of the settlement payment is not excluded from income under sec. 104(a)(2), I.R.C. David M. Fogel and Robert R. Rubin, for petitioners. Steven J. Mopsick, for respondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION RUWE, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency of $11,576 in petitioners’ Federal income tax and an accuracy-related penalty of $2,315 pursuant to section 6662(a)1 for 1996. Respondent concedes the accuracy-related penalty. The issue for decision is whether any of the money received by Mr. Forste in 1996 as a result of a settlement between him and his former employer was properly excluded from gross income under section 104(a)(2) as damages received on account of personal injuries or sickness. 1All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the taxable year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.Page: 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