- 17 - C. Discussion The first requirement for exclusion under section 104(a)(2) is that the claim underlying the settlement agreement must be based on tort or tort-type rights. Commissioner v. Schleier, supra. A tort is defined as a “‘civil wrong, other than breach of contract, for which the court will provide a remedy in the form of an action for damages.’” United States v. Burke, 504 U.S. 229, 234 (1992) (quoting Keeton et al., Prosser & Keeton on the Law of Torts 2 (1984)). In the absence of a general Federal common law of torts or controlling definitions in the Internal Revenue Code, we look to State law to determine the nature of the claim litigated. Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938); United States v. Mitchell, 403 U.S. 190, 197 (1971). The claim must be bona fide, but it need not be sustainable or valid. See Stocks v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 1, 10 (1992). In Illinois, “Tort law * * * applies in situations where society recognizes a duty to exist wholly apart from any contractual undertaking.” Collins v. Reynard, 607 N.E.2d 1185, 1186 (Ill. 1992). IIED has been recognized as a tort under Illinois law. See Valentino v. Hilquist, 785 N.E.2d 891, 903 (Ill. 2003). This Court has also recognized the infliction of emotional distress as a tortlike claim qualifying for exclusionPage: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011