Emmanuel L. Roco - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         
          (1920).2  We disagree.  Gross income includes all income from               
          whatever source derived unless excluded by law.  Sec. 61;                   
          Commissioner v. Kowalski, 434 U.S. 77, 82-83 (1977); Commissioner           
          v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 430 (1955).  The Internal              
          Revenue Code provides no exclusion from gross income for proceeds           
          received by a relator in a qui tam proceeding.  In Eisner v.                
          Macomber, supra, the Supreme Court decided that a shareholder-              
          taxpayer did not realize gain on the receipt of a stock dividend.           
          The Supreme Court said that income is “‘gain derived from                   
          capital, from labor, or from both combined,’” id. at 207 (quoting           
          Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 (1918)), but it              
          does not include “enrichment through increase in value of capital           
          investment”, id. at 214-215.                                                
               Neither qui tam payments nor punitive damages are intended             
          to compensate the recipient for actual damages.  Punitive damages           
          are includable in gross income.  O'Gilvie v. United States, 519             
          U.S. 79, 90 (1996); Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., supra.              
          In Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., supra at 430-431, the                
          Supreme Court said that gross income includes all accessions to             
          wealth and that the definition of income in Eisner v. Macomber,             
          supra, “was not meant to provide a touchstone to all future gross           


               2  At trial petitioner suggested that a qui tam payment is a           
          nontaxable share in the recovery of a reimbursement.  However, we           
          do not consider this theory because petitioner did not explain or           
          argue it on brief.                                                          





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

Last modified: May 25, 2011