McKinney v. Comm'r

2017 T.C. Memo. 6, 113 T.C.M. 1022, 2017 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 5
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedJanuary 5, 2017
DocketDocket No. 9512-15.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2017 T.C. Memo. 6 (McKinney v. Comm'r) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McKinney v. Comm'r, 2017 T.C. Memo. 6, 113 T.C.M. 1022, 2017 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 5 (tax 2017).

Opinion

ANN MCKINNEY, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
McKinney v. Comm'r
Docket No. 9512-15.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 2017-6; 2017 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 5; 113 T.C.M. (CCH) 1022;
January 5, 2017, Filed

Decision will be entered for respondent.

*5 Ann McKinney, Pro se.
Sheida Lahabi, Janet F. Appel, and Derek W. Kelley, for respondent.
NEGA, Judge.

NEGA
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

NEGA, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's 2011 Federal income tax of $9,843.1 The issue for decision is whether $40,000 of *7 settlement proceeds that petitioner received under a settlement agreement and release (settlement agreement) with her former employer, the U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey (Agency), is excludable from her gross income under section 104(a)(2).

FINDINGS OF FACT

Some of the facts are stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. Petitioner resided in Massachusetts when the petition was filed.

Petitioner was an employee of Agency from 1974 until her retirement on July 3, 2009. On May 20, 2009, petitioner filed a complaint of discrimination (complaint) with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Agency alleging discrimination and a hostile work environment on the bases of age and physical disability. After her retirement, petitioner expanded the bases of her complaint to include constructive discharge and thereafter*6 filed an appeal of her claims with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).

On April 12, 2011, petitioner and Agency entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which she agreed to withdraw her complaint and appeal *8 before the MSPB, and Agency agreed to pay her a lump sum of $40,000. The settlement agreement states that petitioner "agrees to be responsible for the tax consequences of the lump sum payment".

On June 14, 2012, Agency filed with the Internal Revenue Service Form 1099-MISC, Miscellaneous Income, for tax year 2011 reporting the payment of $40,000 of nonemployee compensation to petitioner. Petitioner timely filed her 2011 Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, and on April 15, 2013, filed Form 1040X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, amending her initial return for tax year 2011. Petitioner failed to report receipt of the $40,000 lump-sum payment on either filed return.

On January 7, 2015, respondent sent petitioner a notice of deficiency for tax year 2011 determining a deficiency of $9,843 because of petitioner's failure to report the $40,000 lump-sum payment as income. Petitioner timely filed a petition for redetermination.

OPINION

Section 61(a) defines "gross income"*7 as "all income from whatever source derived". Exclusions from gross income must be narrowly construed. Commissioner v. Schleier, 515 U.S. 323, 328, 115 S. Ct. 2159, 132 L. Ed. 2d 294 (1995) (citing United States v. Burke, 504 U.S. 229, 248, 112 S. Ct. 1867, 119 L. Ed. 2d 34 (1992) (Souter, J., concurring)). Section 104(a)(2)*9 provides that "gross income does not include * * * the amount of any damages * * * received * * * on account of personal physical injuries or physical sickness".

For purposes of determining whether damages received pursuant to a written settlement agreement are excludable under section 104(a)(2), we look to the nature of the claim settled. Burke, 504 U.S. at 237. The nature of the claim is determined first by looking to the settlement agreement itself for indicia of its purpose. Greer v. United States, 207 F.3d 322, 329 (6th Cir. 2000). Where the settlement agreement lacks express statements of purpose, we then look beyond the agreement to other evidence indicating the "intent of the payor as to the purpose in making the payment" such as, but not limited to, the amount paid, the factual circumstances that led to the settlement agreement, and the allegations in the payee's complaint and amended complaint.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Robinson v. Commissioner
70 F.3d 34 (Fifth Circuit, 1995)
Welch v. Helvering
290 U.S. 111 (Supreme Court, 1933)
United States v. Burke
504 U.S. 229 (Supreme Court, 1992)
Commissioner v. Schleier
515 U.S. 323 (Supreme Court, 1995)
Daniel C. Greer v. United States
207 F.3d 322 (Sixth Circuit, 2000)
Robinson v. Commissioner
102 T.C. No. 7 (U.S. Tax Court, 1994)
Fono v. Commissioner
79 T.C. No. 44 (U.S. Tax Court, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2017 T.C. Memo. 6, 113 T.C.M. 1022, 2017 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckinney-v-commr-tax-2017.