Ed and Patricia A. Montgomery - Page 6




                                        - 6 -                                         
          Id. at 336-337.  Amounts received as punitive damages are not               
          received “on account of personal injuries or sickness” and thus             
          are not excludable from gross income under section 104(a)(2).               
          O’Gilvie v. United States, 519 U.S. 79, 101 (1996).                         
               Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Schleier, this                
          Court had held that damages received under a 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983            
          (hereinafter referred to as sec. 1983) claim are excludable from            
          income under section 104(a)(2).  Bent v. Commissioner, 87 T.C.              
          236 (1986), affd. 835 F.2d 67 (3d Cir. 1987).  See also Metzger             
          v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 834 (1987), affd. without published                
          opinion 845 F.2d 1013 (3d Cir. 1988).  In Bent, the taxpayer was            
          a high school teacher who had brought suit after the school board           
          had declined to rehire him.  He sued the school board for breach            
          of contract and various sec. 1983 claims.  After a court had                
          rejected all of the taxpayer’s claims except a sec. 1983 claim              
          based on a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech,           
          the taxpayer settled the case.  This Court held that the                    
          settlement payment received by the taxpayer was excludable from             
          income under section 104(a)(2).  In so holding, the Court found             
          that, under the circumstances of the case, the taxpayer’s                   
          recovery of lost wages was an element of the compensatory damages           
          available under sec. 1983 and was not an independent basis for              
          recovery.  The Third Circuit affirmed, expressing agreement with            
          our reasoning and conclusions.                                              






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011