-9-
not considered a physical injury or physical sickness, except
that an exclusion may be allowed to the amount paid for medical
care attributable to the emotional distress); see also United
States v. Burke, 504 U.S. at 237 (stating that former section
104(a)(2)’s reference to personal injuries “encompasses * * *
nonphysical injuries to the individual, such as those affecting
emotions, reputation, or character”); Greer v. United States,
supra at 328; Garrett v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-70. See
generally Black’s Law Dictionary 542 (7th ed. 1999) (“emotional
distress” denotes “A highly unpleasant mental reaction (such as
anguish, grief, fright, humiliation, or fury) that results from
another person’s conduct; emotional pain and suffering.”). We
conclude that none of petitioner’s net settlement payment is
attributable to personal physical injuries or physical sickness
and hold that none of that payment may be excluded from
petitioners’ gross income under section 104(a)(2).5 In so doing,
we note that the record does not establish the intent of GM in
making any or all of the settlement payment to petitioner.6
5 Petitioners make no claim that any part of the net
settlement amount was received by petitioner as damages for
expenses paid for medical care attributable to emotional
distress. Nor are we able to find that such was the case.
Accordingly, we also conclude that the flush language of sec.
104(a) is inapplicable.
6 Petitioners introduced into evidence a letter from the
Social Security Administration showing that petitioner was
eligible for disability payments during 1998. The record is
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011