- 10 -
purposes and, as a result, * * * [the plaintiff’s]
equal protection claim, as a matter of law, must fail.
For the reasons set forth above, we hold that the $20,000
payment received by petitioner in 2000 is not excludable from his
income for that year.
In sustaining respondent’s deficiency determination, we have
considered all of petitioner’s arguments, but we find them
legally unsound. In particular, we reject petitioner’s argument
that section 104(a)(2), as amended in 1996, is unconstitutional
based on O’Gilvie v. United States, 519 U.S. 79 (1996) (holding
that under section 104(a)(2), as in effect for 1988, amounts
received as punitive damages are not received “on account of
personal injuries or sickness” and thus are not excludable from
gross income under that section).
Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case
Division.
To give effect to our disposition of the disputed issue,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Last modified: May 25, 2011