- 13 -
revg. in part and remanding 106 T.C. 184 (1996); Getty
v. Commissioner, 913 F.2d 1486, 1490 (9th Cir. 1990)
(whether proceeds of a settlement should be characterized
as a gift or taxable income), revg. 91 T.C. 160 (1988).
After submitting the motion for summary judgment,
respondent requested and was granted leave to file a
memorandum of points and authorities in support of
respondent’s motion for summary judgment (herein referred
to as memorandum). In the memorandum, respondent makes
three arguments in further support of his position that
none of the payments petitioner received in settlement of
Campbell v. State Farm is excludable from gross income
under section 104(a)(2).
The first argument in respondent’s memorandum is that
petitioner’s tort and contract claims actually were time
barred under the applicable statutes of limitations in
Arizona before the complaint in Campbell v. State Farm was
filed. Respondent points out that Campbell v. State Farm
“was not filed until October 8, 1999--approximately
sixteen years after the accident and fourteen years after
the alleged breach.” According to respondent, this was
well after both the 2-year period of limitations
applicable to personal injury suits and the 6-year period
of limitations applicable to “any cause of action which
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011