VALIA v. COMMISSIONER

2005 T.C. Summary Opinion 17, 2005 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 167
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedFebruary 16, 2005
DocketNo. 6756-03S
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2005 T.C. Summary Opinion 17 (VALIA v. COMMISSIONER) 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
VALIA v. COMMISSIONER, 2005 T.C. Summary Opinion 17, 2005 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 167 (tax 2005).

Opinion

ASHIT VALIA AND SMITA VALIA, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
VALIA v. COMMISSIONER
No. 6756-03S
United States Tax Court
T.C. Summary Opinion 2005-17; 2005 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 167;
February 16, 2005, Filed

*167 PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b), THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE.

Ashit Valia and Smita Valia, Pro se.
Hieu C. Nguyen, for respondent.
Panuthos, Peter J.

PETER J. PANUTHOS

PANUTHOS, Chief Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect at the time the petition was filed. The decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion should not be cited as authority. Unless otherwise indicated, subsequent section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Respondent determined a deficiency of $ 25,276 in petitioners' Federal income tax for the 2001 taxable year. The issue for decision is whether petitioners are entitled to exclude $ 62,500 of settlement proceeds, including $ 25,000 of attorney's fees from their gross income for the 2001 taxable year. 1

*168 Background

Some of the facts have been stipulated, and they are so found. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. At the time of their petition, petitioners resided in California.

Petitioner Smita Valia (petitioner) was an employee of Smith Barney, Inc. (Smith Barney) in its Southfield, Michigan, office until her resignation in September 1993. In a letter dated November 18, 1999, Stowell & Friedman, Ltd., a law firm in Chicago, Illinois, informed petitioner that she was a member of a class to whom Smith Barney would make a settlement offer in Martens v. Smith Barney, Inc., 181 F.R.D. 243 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).

On February 5, 2001, petitioner entered into a "Release of Claims" (release), which provided in relevant part:

1. Smita Valia ("Claimant"), in consideration of a payment of $ 100,000.00 payable as follows: 1) the payment of $ 37,500.00 to Claimant (less applicable payroll withholding taxes); 2) the payment to Claimant of $ 37,500.00 (for which an IRS "Form 1099" will be issued); and, 3) the payment of attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $ 25,000.00 to Stowell & Friedman (for which an IRS "Form 1099" *169 will be issued to both Claimant and Stowell & Friedman), hereby releases and forever discharges Salomon Smith Barney Inc. ("Smith Barney"), TravelersGroup, Inc., and Citigroup Inc., and each of their past, current and future parents, subsidiaries and affiliated companies and each of their past, current and future officers, directors, and employees, from any and all claims and demands whatsoever, known or unknown, in law or equity, by contract, tort or pursuant to statute, regulation or ordinance, which she now has or ever had or may have from the beginning of time until the date she executes this Release, including, but without limitation, any claims raised in the Dispute Resolution Process ("DRP") provided for in the settlement of the above-captioned lawsuit, and expressly including any and all claims and demands regarding, arising out of, or relating to Claimant's employment with Smith Barney and, if applicable, the termination thereof.

2. This Release includes claims and demands regarding, arising out of, or relating to any form of employment discrimination, including, but not limited to, sex or gender discrimination, sexual harassment, sexual preference discrimination, race, national*170 origin, or religious discrimination, age or disability discrimination and any and all other forms of employment discrimination prohibited by the 1866 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 [sic], Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et. sec., [sic] the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the Equal Pay Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 [sic], the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, or any other Federal, state or local statute, regulation or ordinance prohibiting employment discrimination.

Petitioner was a resident of California when she executed the release. Petitioners' legal fees were based on a contingency-fee agreement with their attorney.

Of the $ 100,000 settlement proceeds, Smith Barney sent Stowell & Friedman, Ltd. a check in the amount of $ 25,000, which was characterized as payment of attorney's fees and costs. Smith Barney also sent, and petitioners received, $ 60,056.25 of the remaining settlement proceeds. 2 Consistent with the release, Smith Barney issued petitioners a Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, *171

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

Related

Commissioner v. Banks
543 U.S. 426 (Supreme Court, 2005)
Bent v. Commissioner
87 T.C. No. 15 (U.S. Tax Court, 1986)
Martens v. Smith Barney, Inc.
181 F.R.D. 243 (S.D. New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2005 T.C. Summary Opinion 17, 2005 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valia-v-commissioner-tax-2005.