Charles Leonard Braden and Joice Stieber Braden - Page 9

                                        - 8 -                                         
                  Campbell v. State Farm was settled by the parties                   
             to that suit in late 2001.  The settlement agreement was                 
             approved by the District Court in an amended final                       
             judgment entered on November 27, 2001.  Petitioner                       
             received her share of the settlement proceeds, $30,199,                  
             in 2002.  The record of this case does not contain the                   
             release that, we assume, petitioner executed in return                   
             for the payment.                                                         
                  The underlying issue is whether petitioners’ gross                  
             income for taxable year 2002 should be increased by                      
             $30,199, the amount determined in the notice of                          
             deficiency.  As noted above, petitioners acknowledge in                  
             their petition that they had received $199 of that amount                
             as “interest”, and they state that they had “sent $32.86                 
             to the IRS as payment for the additional taxes for $199.”                
             Thus, petitioners concede in their petition that their                   
             gross income for 2002 should be increased by $199 of                     
             the amount determined in the notice of deficiency.                       
             Respondent’s motion for summary judgment will be granted                 
             as to that amount.                                                       
                  As to the bulk of the increase in gross income                      
             determined in the notice of deficiency, viz $30,000, the                 
             issue raised in the petition is whether that amount                      
             qualifies as damages received “on account of personal                    






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011