Beyond Structured Settlements

Taxation of Emotional Distress Damages - 1

Some of the most challenging federal income tax issues for settlement planners and their clients involve damages related to emotional distress and, even more specifically, damages compensating for stress-induced physical ailments.

This blog post summarizes federal legislative and regulatory tax history related to emotional distress damages and highlights recommendations for related legislative changes. In a subsequent blog post, S2KM will review articles by Jeremy Babener and Robert Wood analyzing recent related case law and offering their advice to settlement planning stakeholders.

Before enactment of the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996, IRC section 104(a)(2) exempted from federal income tax payments received from settlements or judgments resulting from claims for personal injuries or sickness.

As the result of the 1996 amendment, however, Section 104(a)(2) now exempts from federal income tax “damages (other than punitive damages) received … on account of personal physical injuries or physical sickness.” Section 104(a) now also provides "emotional distress shall not be treated as a physical injury or physical sickness" for purposes of subsection (2). However, damages received on account of emotional distress that are attributable to a physical injury or physical sickness are excludable. The related legislative history provides that “emotional distress” includes “physical symptoms (e.g., insomnia, headaches, stomach disorders) which may result from such emotional distress.”

Since 1996, there have been many tax cases and many IRS rulings addressing damages for emotional distress. In a private letter ruling issued in 2000 (“the bruise ruling”), the IRS established “the observable bodily harms” standard in a case involving sexual assault and harassment in an employment context: “we believe that direct unwanted or uninvited physical contacts resulting in observable harms such as bruises, cuts, swelling and bleeding are personal physical injuries under section 104(a)(2).”

The United States Treasury did not issue new regulations for IRC section 104(a)(2), to address the 1996 amendments, until proposed regulations were published in 2009. A public hearing followed on February 23, 2010. On January 20, 2012, Treasury published final regulations for IRC section 104(a)(2) which were essentially the same as the 2009 proposed regulations.

Although the 2012 regulations confirm that damages for emotional distress attributable to a physical injury or physical sickness are excluded from income under section 104(a)(2), they do not provide any explanation to help define “physical” or “physical sickness”.

In addition to the tax rules outlined above, recipients of damages related to emotional distress, and their advisers, should also consider the following:

• IRS Form 1099 - When defendants settle cases involving taxable damages, they are required to complete an IRS Form 1099 and send copies to the claimant and the IRS. Most section 104(a)(2) cases, according to Robert Wood in his article "Tax-Free Physical Sickness Recoveries in 2010 and Beyond", have said a Form 1099 means the defendant/payer thought the damages were taxable. Conversely, Wood states, some courts have noted that the failure to issue a Form 1099 does not make a payment tax free.
• IRC Section 6661 - IRC Section 6661 establishes a 25% penalty for “substantial understatement of income tax.” However, according to case law cited in section 2.03 of “Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments”, (S2P2J) where a taxpayer reasonably relies on the advice of professionals in claiming a tax exclusion for emotional distress damages, the taxpayer may be able to escape application of an accuracy-related penalty - even though the exclusion was not accepted,
• Medical Care Exception - IRC section 104(a) excludes from gross income “damages not in excess of the amount paid for medical care … attributable to emotional distress.” In his article titled "Maximizing the Medical Care Exception to the Tax on Emotional Distress Damages", Jeremy Babener points out: "...when a client plans to receive damages on account of emotional distress, taking advantage of the medical care exception requires deliberate planning." Babener adds, however, "... while excluding damages based on past medical care expenses is relatively straightforward, excluding damages based on future medical care expenses is anything but."

During and/or concurrent with the February 23, 2010 public Treasury hearing related to the section 104 (a)(2) regulations, multiple persons recommended changes to the "physical" requirement added by the 1996 amendments including:

• The National Taxpayer Advocate - The National Taxpayer Advocate (NTA) addresses taxpayer considerations from inside the IRS. In a 2010 report to Congress, NTA representative Nina Olson recommended that section 104(a)(2) exempt non-physical damages, specifically emotional distress, mental anguish, and pain and suffering. To support her recommendation, Olson offered scientific data (that depression and other psychological illnesses included physical elements) and argued that existing tax law conflicts with public policy (the nondiscrimination requirement in the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008).
• John McCulloch - During the Treasury hearing, McCulloch proposed that damages received by victims of prolonged sexual abuse or false imprisonment should always be deemed “physical” for purposes of IRC section 104(a)(2) whether or not evidence is available to demonstrate physical injury.
• David Higgins - In a written submission for the Treasury public hearing, Higgins argued that the IRS’ definition of "physical" is inadequate: “direct unwanted or uninvited physical contacts resulting in observable bodily harm such as bruises, cuts, swelling, and bleeding.” Higgins recommended a broader definition, including damages for:
  • A doctor’s misdiagnosis resulting in death or serious injury from delayed or missing treatment;
  • Child neglect resulting in starvation or illness;
  • Rape committed under threat of bodily harm; and
  • Other situations where traditional physical injury torts occur without unwanted or uninvited physical contact or observable bodily harm.

For more detailed information about taxation of structured settlement payments, including emotional distress damages, see Chapter 2 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J).

Treasury Publishes New IRC 104(a)(2) Regs

The United States Treasury has published new regulations for IRC section 104(a)(2) relating to the exclusion from gross income for amounts received on account of personal physical injuries or physical sickness.

Published January 20, 2012, the new section 104(a)(2) regulations make two primary changes to the current regulations. First, they incorporate amendments to 104(a)(2) made in Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 (1996 Act). Second, they eliminate the previous regulatory requirement that damages must be based upon “tort or tort type rights” to qualify for the tax exclusion.

The 1996 Act included two legislative amendments narrowing the applicability of the 104(a)(2) exclusion. The first amendment prevents any punitive damages from qualifying for the tax exclusion in the personal injury context. The second amendment requires that injury or sickness damages must result from “physical” origins to be excluded. Although emotional distress is not considered a physical injury or physical illness, the new regulations confirm that damages for emotional distress attributable to a physical injury or physical sickness are excluded from income under section 104(a)(2).

The new section 104(a)(2) regulations also eliminate the previous regulatory requirement that damages must be “based on tort or tort type rights” to qualify for exclusion. In a 1995 case (Commissioner v. Schleier), the United States Supreme Court interpreted this requirement to disallow the exclusion of damages where the relevant law (a "no-fault" statute) provided a contractual remedy even though the claimant suffered a personal physical injury or physical sickness as a result of a breach of contract. The new regulations eliminate this prior requirement and allow the tax exclusion to apply even when the physical injury or sickness does not constitute a tort under state or common law.

The new, final regulations for section 104(a)(2) are essentially the same as the proposed regulations the United States Treasury issued in 2009 and which were the subject of a public hearing on February 23, 2010. The final regulations did not adopt any of the recommendations offered by commentators at the public hearing. These recommendations included:

•  Requests by Richard Risk and Jack Meligan that the final regulations address whether a claimant has constructive receipt or the current economic benefit of a damage award that is set aside for the claimant’s benefit in a section 468B qualified settlement fund;

• Requests by John McCulloch and David Higgins that the final regulations confirm several specific types of damages are "physical" and therefore tax-exempt.

For background information about the new section 104(a)(2) regulations and their application to structured settlements, including commentary and analysis by Jeremy Babener, see these prior S2KM blog posts:

• Treasury Hearing on IRC 104(a)(2) Regs
• A Common Cause at the Treasury Regulation Hearing
• Treasury Hearing Commentary
• Voices at the Treasury Hearing
• Speaker Comments at the Treasury Hearing
• Legislation to Expand the Structured Settlement Industry
• Babener Proposes Expanded S2 Tax Subsidy

For a copy of the new section 104(a)(2) regulations, see the structured settlement wiki.

NSSTA 2011 Education Meeting

The National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) hosted one of its best-ever educational programs November 2-4, 2011 in Austin, Texas. The conference primarily showcased NSSTA members and NSSTA member executives and encompassed a variety of important industry topics.

Speakers and topics:

NSSTA President Dan Finn - Finn summarized NSSTA's current projects, emphasized NSSTA's improved structured settlement marketing and announced the 2012 NSSTA Annual Meeting which will take place in Washington, D.C. and feature Congressmen Dave Camp and Paul Ryan as Keynote Speakers.

NSSTA Executive Director Eric Vaughn - In addition to reviewing the 112th Congress and Super Committee, Vaughn discussed the following NSSTA challenges and priorities:

• Protect IRC sections 104(a)(2) and 130.
• Defend structured settlements.
• Promote the expanded use of structured settlements.
• Expand the markets for structured settlements.
• Enhance the CSSC designation.
• Provide state court judicial education about structured settlements.

AIG Chief Economist Ardanvan Mobasheri - Mobasheri's economic overview highlighted China's emerging leadership, outlined a "very healthy non-financial business world" and predicted low interest rates for the foreseeable future.

American General Life President Mary Jane Fortin - Describing AIG as "a strong, stable and resilient company dedicated to keeping our promises", Fortin dispelled several "myths" about AIG, summarized AIG's recovery and expressed optimism about the future of life insurance industry and structured settlements.

John McCulloch and Michael Miller - Reprising NSSTA "Tax Posse", McCulloch and Miller introduced the new IRS audit guide for lawsuits, awards and settlements and reviewed recent tax cases addressing employment, factoring and Qualified Settlement Fund issues.

Peter Vodola, Stephen Harris and Amy Ravitz - The co-chairpersons of NSSTA's Legal Committee participated in two separate panels moderated by James Ebel and Michael Kelly and discussed non-tax cases and issues including state structured settlement protection statutes, issues arising from transfer petitions and minors statutes and settlements.

Len Blonder and NSSTA General Counsel Craig Ulman - Blonder and Ulman reported the status of the Executive Life of New York (ELNY) liquidation, discussed the consequences for structured settlements and reviewed hypothetical case examples from the proposed ELNY Restructuring Agreement.

Karen Meyers, LeAnne Sprague, Doug Brand and Kathy Moghadas - In addition to discussing changes to the CSSC designation that will require annual CE credits, NSSTA sponsored a special four hour annuity education session designed to meet the requirements of the new state annuity transaction suitability laws.

CNA Commercial Liability Claims Vice President James Martin - Championing structured settlements as an "important competitive advantage" for liability insurers, Martin also emphasized the importance of linking structured settlements and structured settlement sales to claim department goals and metrics.

Ringler Radio Broadcaster Larry Cohen - When announced co-interviwer Mark Wahlstrom proved a "no show", Cohen glibly volleyed Eric Vaughn toughest questions. Three memorable Cohen quotes: "a lot of a little is a lot"; "vision without execution is hallucination"; and (applying his grandfather's wisdom to Executive Life's annuity rates ) "there is something wrong with this tuna fish."

Liberty Life Chief Underwriter Kevin Smith - Speaking about "Life Company Operating Metrics", Smith pointed out the dearth of structured settlement metrics and announced a collaborative project among multiple NSSTA life company members to develop a preliminary set of structured settlement operating metrics.

Attorney William C Chriss - Author of the new book "The Noble Lawyer", Chriss discussed legal and structured settlement ethics. Among his observations while discussing NSSTA's Code of Ethics:

• "We cultivate beliefs that justify our behaviors, not the other way around.
• "Unconscious bias, as opposed to intentional venality, cannot be deterred by criminal laws or post hoc sanctions.
• "The more people involved, the easier it is to defuse moral responsibility."

Congratulations to NSSTA's speakers and leaders (especially Education Chairpersons Toni Warbington and Don Engels as well as Finn, Vaughn and Associate Director Peter Arnold) for substantially upgrading NSSTA's educational program.

For S2KM reports about prior conferences of NSSTA and other structured settlement and settlement planning professional associations, see the structured settlement wiki.

Expanding Section 104(a)(2)'s Tax Exclusion

In a 2010 article titled "How Plaintiffs Might Receive Emotional Distress Damages Tax-Free After 2010", published in the "North Carolina Lawyers Weekly", Jeremy Babener asked a pointed and strategic question: how can the structured settlement industry encourage more damages to be received tax-free? Doing so, presumably, would expand the structured settlement market.

Several proposals to accomplish these objectives have been offered during the past few months - some of which resulted from a U.S. Department of the Treasury public hearing held on February 23, 2010 to consider proposed new Treasury regulations for IRC section 104(a)(2). If adopted, these proposed new Treasury regulations would make two primary changes to current regulations: 

• Eliminate the requirement that damages be based on “tort or tort type rights” in order to qualify for the section 104(a)(2) tax exclusion, and
• Incorporate 1996 legislation requiring that personal injuries and sickness damages be “physical” in order to qualify for the section 104(a)(2) exclusion.

In the context of these proposed new Treasury regulations, the structured settlement industry would benefit from greater discussion and a better understanding of the following recent tax proposals to expand application of the section 104(a)(2) tax exclusion:

• The National Taxpayer Advocate, which considers taxpayer considerations from inside the IRS, has recommended that section 104(a)(2) exempt non-physical damages, specifically emotional distress, mental anguish, and pain and suffering.
• John McCulloch proposed, during the February 23, 2010 public Treasury hearing, that damages received by victims of prolonged sexual abuse or false imprisonment should always be deemed “physical” for purposes of IRC section 104(a)(2) whether or not evidence is available to demonstrate physical injury.
• Richard Risk and Jack Meligan each recommended, during the same public hearing, that Treasury issue regulations explicitly holding the economic benefit doctrine will not be triggered in the context of single-claimant 468B Qualified Settlement Funds.
• David Higgins has proposed two recent tax recommendations. In a written submission for the Treasury public hearing, Higgins argued that the IRS’ definition of "physical" is inadequate: “direct unwanted or uninvited physical contacts resulting in observable bodily harm such as bruises, cuts, swelling, and bleeding.” Higgins recommends a broader definition, including damages for:
  • A doctor’s misdiagnosis resulting in death or serious injury from delayed or missing treatment;
  • Child neglect resulting in starvation or illness;
  • Rape committed under threat of bodily harm; and
  • Other situations where traditional physical injury torts occur without unwanted or uninvited physical contact or observable bodily harm.
• Higgins directed his second recommendation to Senator Max Baucus (Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee), Congressman Dave Camp (Chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means), and Michael Mundaca (Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Tax Policy). In his communication, Higgins recommended a "rollover provision" to replace Section 130 of the Tax Code. Higgins' proposal would allow personal injury plaintiffs to accept a check from defendants and invest the money within a given period (likely limiting the investment options to annuities and Treasury bonds), without losing the tax benefit currently available to them only by agreeing to a structured settlement with a counter-party.
• Jeremy Babener has proposed a legislative conversion of the structured settlement exclusion to a refundable tax credit. The premise of Babener's proposal is that high-income taxpayers benefit more from the structured settlement subsidy than low-income taxpayers, who sometimes do not benefit at all. A refundable tax credit would provide the same incentive value to all structured settlement recipients, high-income or low-income.

Most recently, McCulloch has incorporated his earlier recommendations into a request to Treasury and the IRS that final regulations under IRC Section 104(a)(2) should clarify the scope of the exclusion for damages received on account of personal "physical" injuries or "physical" sickness. McCulloch's request seeks guidance and a determination as part of Treasury's 2011-2012 Guidance Priority List that sexual abuse cases and long-term wrongful incarceration (at least one year of restraint) are per se physical injuries under Section 104(a)(2).

In support of his proposal, McCulloch states: "There is a significant body of literature that recognizes sexual abuse as a serious medical problem with long lasting and severe physical effects, many of which can only be treated by a licensed medical practitioner or through the prescription of controlled medications. There are similar medical studies that demonstrate the persistent physical damage that results from long-term incarceration."

The purpose of the Treasury's Priority Guidance Plan is to focus United States government resources "on guidance items that are most important to taxpayers and tax administration." In reviewing recommendations and selecting projects for inclusion on the 2011-2012 Guidance Priority list, the Treasury and the IRS have stated they will consider whether the recommended guidance:

• Resolves significant issues relevant to many taxpayers;
• Promotes sound tax administration;
• Can be drafted in a manner that will enable taxpayers to easily understand and apply the guidance;
• Involves regulations that are outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome and that should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed;
• Reduces controversy and lessens the burden on taxpayers or the IRS; and
• Whether the IRS can administer the recommended guidance on a uniform basis.

McCulloch maintains his request for guidance satisfies the above criteria:

• Since Section 104(a)(2) was amended in 1996, taxpayers have needed guidance to determine the scope of the terms "physical injury" and "physical sickness" for which no definitions exist.
• The 1996 amendment did not specifically consider its application to victims of sexual abuse and wrongful incarceration and needs modification because it affects a large and growing number of taxpayers:
  • For sexual abuse victims, because of greater opportunities for victims resulting from legislation in many states which extends applicable statutes of limitations.
  • For wrongful incarceration victims, because more widely available DNA-testing absolves wrongfully convicted prisoners.
• The requested guidance would promote sound tax administration by providing an understandable tax rule thereby minimizing the likelihood of future controversies.
• It would also provide consistency in tax treatment among such victims who face uncertainties and expense when they currently attempt to address these issues individually.

In S2KM's opinion, industry support for McCulloch's proposal would provide one immediate answer to Jeremy Babener's strategic question about how the structured settlement industry can cooperate to improve and grow its market by encouraging more damages to be received tax-free under IRC section 104(a)(2).

For additional information about taxation of damages received by personal injury victims, see Chapter 2 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J)

Structured Settlements in 2010 - 2

Beginning in 2004, S2KM has utilized this blog ("Beyond Structured Settlements") and related web 2.0 publications to report and analyze strategic developments impacting the structured settlement and special needs settlement planning (aka settlement consulting) industries.

Featuring industry leaders, commentators and professional association conferences, S2KM has attempted to highlight how legal and technology changes are redefining the traditional (pre-2001) structured settlement market including structured settlement public policy as well as structured settlement business standards, business practices and business models.

From S2KM's perspective, the following categories, people and developments defined the structured settlement and special needs settlement planning industries in 2010:

Professional associations

• S2KM attended seven professional educational conferences during 2010 which addressed structured settlement and/or special needs settlement planning issues:
  • National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) - 2
  • Society of Settlement Planners (SSP)
  • National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP)
  • National Alliance of Medicare Set-Aside Professionals (NAMSAP)
  • National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA)
  • Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP)
• As a general observation, all of these conferences were valuable and complementary. For S2KM's 2010 (plus historical) conference reports, see S2KM's structured settlement wiki.
• SSP, NASP and NAMSAP deserve special recognition for their 2010 strategic educational discussions featuring industry leaders, commentators and critics who offered alternative perspectives for improving and growing the structured settlement and special needs settlement planning markets.
• By comparison, NSSTA remains reluctant to openly discuss strategic industry issues or to include alternative perspectives in their educational programs. More positively, NSSTA representatives and members increasingly attend and speak at non-NSSTA structured settlement and special needs settlement planning conferences.
• NAELA's educational conferences are noteworthy because they regularly feature sections or entire programs titled "unprograms". NAELA's unprograms are moderated group discussions about specific topics. NAELA's 2010 Special Needs Summit included six separate one hour unprograms with a concluding unprogram wrap-up session. One example of a 2010 NAELA unprogram was titled "Collaboration Opportunities for Special Needs Attorneys and Financial Planners".

Industry leaders

• NSSTA promoted Eric Vaughn, who previously served as NSSTA's lobbyist, to replace Joseph Ricci as NSSTA's new Executive Director effective July 1, 2010. Peter Arnold, previously NSSTA's Marketing Director, was similarly promoted to serve as NSSTA's Associate Executive Director. NSSTA's Board of Directors elected Michael Kelly as its 2010 President and Dan Finn as its President-elect. NSSTA honored Congressman Peter Stark during its Annual Meeting as its 2010 Legislator of the Year. NSSTA also gave special recognition to Karen Meyers and Joseph Bornstein for their contributions to NSSTA's CSSC and NSSTAPAC programs respectively..
• SSP elected Jason Lazarus as its President for 2010-11 and Charles Schell as Vice President. SSP honored Richard Risk with the designation of "life member" for his contributions to SSP and the settlement planning industry. Joseph Tombs continues as Director of SSP's RSP certification program.
• NASP named Matthew Bracy as its new President succeeding Robin Shapiro. Earl Nesbitt continues as NASP's Executive Director.
• NAMSAP elected Michael Westcott as its President.
• NAELA honored Dick Traum as the first recipient of NAELA's Special Needs Leadership Award. Traum is the founder and CEO of Achilles International, a non-profit organization providing community support for athletes with disabilities with members in more than 70 countries.
• Amy Palmiero-Winters, ultra-marathoner and lower-leg amputee, was named during 2010 as the winner of the 2009 James E. Sullivan Award given annually to the top amateur athlete in the United States.

Industry commentators

• For the past several years, Robert Wood has been the preeminent tax commentator and author for the structured settlement and settlement planning industries. Wood's publications appear on the Wood & Porter website.
• During 2010, Jeremy Babener emerged as an important new structured settlement tax commentator and author specializing in public policy and proposing an expanded structured settlement tax subsidy. In addition to authoring several structured settlement articles for tax and legal journals, Babener participated as a featured speaker at both the SSP and NASP 2010 Annual Meetings and authored two blog posts for S2KM during 2010. Babener discussed his structured settlement writing (accessible on S2KM's structured settlement public policy wiki and Babener's Tax Structuring website) in this 2010 S2KM interview.
• Additional authors who wrote and published 2010 legal articles about structured settlement and special needs settlement planning issues included: Daniel Hindert, Matt Garretson, Sylvius von Saucken, Peter Wayne, Mark Popolizio, Gregg Polsky and Brant Hellwig.
• Both the Legal Broadcast Network and Ringler Radio continued to produce and distribute podcasts featuring structured settlement commentators during 2010.
• An increasing number of structured settlement and special needs settlement planning professionals published blogs during 2010 joining industry blogging pioneers such as John Darer, Mark Wahlstrom, Matthew Bracy and Jack Meligan.
• Incisive Media published two new updates (Release 47 and Release 48) for "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" during 2010.

Legislation

• Both the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Health Care Reform) and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank) redesign the legal environment in which the structured settlement and personal injury settlement planning markets operate.
• Among the anticipated strategic consequences of health care reform:
  • An estimated 16 million more Medicaid participants - and therefore:
  • More special needs trusts;
  • More special needs attorneys;
  • More structured settlement annuities payable to trustees.
• Dodd-Frank re-writes federal banking law and creates a new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. A key question, as yet unanswered, is whether the sale and/or purchase of structured settlement annuities constitutes a "financial product or service" under Dodd-Frank requiring regulatory supervision by the Bureau.

Regulations

• The United States Department of Treasury held a public hearing on February 23, 2010 focused on proposed new regulations for Internal Revenue Code section 104(a)(2). The proposed regulations, if enacted, would:
  • Eliminate the requirement that damages be based on “tort or tort type rights” in order to qualify for the section 104(a)(2) tax exclusion, and
  • Incorporate 1996 legislation requiring that personal injuries and sickness damages be “physical” in order to qualify for the section 104(a)(2) tax exclusion.
  • A subsequent S2KM interview featured John McCullough and Richard Risk, two of the structured settlement industry members who spoke at the hearing.
• The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) continued to issue administrative guidance during 2010 for enforcement of the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) Act of 1980 and the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (MMSEA) reporting requirements for insurers. Featured discussions during the NAMSAP 2010 Annual meeting highlighted:
  • The increasing importance and complexity of the MSP statute for all personal injury stakeholders;
  • The need for these personal injury stakeholders (and their professional associations) to cooperate politically and educationally;
  • The challenges of integrating structured settlements, including rated ages, with Medicare set-aside arrangements (MSAs) in the context of health care reform, CMS MSA regulations and related judicial rulings;
  • The evolving business models, claim management strategies and professional skill sets which are now emerging to address these challenges.

Case law

• The Spencer v. Hartford class action lawsuit which settled in 2010 represents one of the most important legal developments in the history of the structured settlement industry.
• Hartford's gross settlement payment of $72.5 million represents 4.5% of total premium dollars Hartford used to purchase structured settlement annuities for class members from January 1, 1997 to June 7, 2010.
• Among the plaintiffs allegations:
  • Hartford and its attorneys, brokers and agents violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and committed common law fraud in structuring its settlements.
  • Hartford's structured settlements were priced so Hartford retained 15% of the value of the structured settlements.
  • Hartford and its attorneys, brokers and agents misrepresented structured settlements including explicit or implicit reference to:
    • The "cost" of the annuity or structured settlement or portion of the settlement being structured; and/or
    • The "value" of the annuity or structured settlement or portion of the settlement being structured.
• Hartford, which stopped writing new structured settlement business in 2009, denied the allegations.

Technology

• Despite the accelerating technology advances revolutionizing society generally, the structured settlement and special needs settlement planning industries have been slow to study and incorporate these advances into their educational programs and business models.
• The best industry-sponsored technology education programs during 2010 were offered by Mark Miller during a NAELA webinar and Harry Margolis at the ASNP 2010 Annual Meeting. Both presentations provided introductory overviews of web 2.0 and including recommendations for integrating specific social networking tools into special needs legal practices.
• NSSTA initiated a NSSTA blog during 2010 and offered an educational program about Internet marketing during its 2010 Fall Education program.

Public policy

• Both SSP and NASP featured specific discussions and presentations about structured settlement public policy during their 2010 Annual Meetings. The discussions included industry commentators representing diverse viewpoints and priorities.
• Jeremy Babener followed his 2009 paper debunking industry myths concerning "structured settlement dissipation studies" with several 2010 articles and papers addressing structured settlement public policy issues. Babener's public policy writing is featured on S2KM's structured settlement public policy wiki.
• Release 47 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" re-examined several structured settlement public policy issues related to single claimant 468B funds, structured settlement factoring transactions, dissipation by personal injury victims, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, special needs trusts and Medicare set-aside arrangements.
• In a 2010 Boston College Law Review article, professors Gregg Polsky and Brant Hellwig challenged the application of any structured settlement tax benefit for deferring attorney fees or payments to non-physically injured tort plaintiffs under general common law tax principles.

Business standards and practices

• The Spencer v. Hartford case raises many issues about structured settlement business standards and practices which require greater education and analysis if the primary market expects to improve and grow. For example;
  • Is the primary structured settlement market capable of self-regulation?
  • Why shouldn't key elements of the state structured settlement protection statutes (judicial approval; best interest test; compensation disclosure) be applied to primary market transactions?
  • As an additional requirement, or as an alternative, why haven't plaintiff attorneys and plaintiff consultants insisted upon a claimant's written informed consent before entering into a structured settlement?
  • Why haven't the SSP's Standards of Professional Conduct received more public discussion and analysis within the structured settlement industry?
• "Cash now" advertising represents one of the most highly criticized secondary market business practices. Although this practice continues to exist, NASP took an important educational step during its 2010 Annual Meeting by highlighting this issue and inviting secondary market critics to participate in the discussion.

Business models

• While other segments of, and products within, the special needs settlement planning market have expanded and improved in recent years, the structured settlement primary market in general has stagnated and retrenched.
• During 2010, however, representatives of the primary structured settlement market increasingly recognized their interdependency, and interacted, with other settlement planning professionals and professional associations such as special needs attorneys, life care planners, Medicare set-aside professionals and secondary structured settlement market participants.
• Future industry improvement and growth will require even greater appreciation and identification of shared interests as well as expanded implementation of shared political strategies, educational programs and business models.

Prior S2KM annual reports about the structured settlement industry and reports about industry association conferences are available on S2KM's structured settlement wiki.

Speaker Comments at the Treasury Hearing

After the Treasury hearing on February 23, 2010, S2KM asked structured settlement industry members who spoke at the hearing to comment on their reactions. John McCulloch, Vice-President of Integrated Financial Settlements, and Dick Risk, Attorney at the Risk Law Firm, provided their thoughts below.

John McCulloch, Vice-President, Integrated Financial Settlements

S2KM: The Treasury panel noted that private letter rulings are not “black-letter law” more than once when you discussed the “observable bodily harm” understanding of “physical,” which stems from a 2000 private letter ruling. Did their comments or questions change how you thought about that standard at all?

McCulloch: While PLR’s may not be cited as precedent, courts routinely include them and cite them in their analysis and they are generally a good indication of the Service’s thoughts on a specific issue. The “bruise ruling” has been the only guidance, informal though it may be, on what the Service considers a physical injury. My thoughts on the matter haven’t changed; taxpayers need clarity when it comes to certain types of injuries that fall within a grey area.

S2KM: One member of the Treasury panel asked you if it would be difficult to prove that a tort caused plaintiff an increase in blood pressure. Does this suggest to you that proving that a significant increase in blood pressure resulted from, for example, sexual harassment, could render a portion of sexual harassment damages non-taxable? How might this impact the argument that damages for causing a plaintiff’s mental chemistry to change should be non-taxable because they are on account of “physical” injuries or “physical” sickness?

McCulloch: I was pleased she was open to this line of reasoning, but I think it would be very difficult to sustain. Congressional intent in 1996 was to eliminate the exclusion being used for employment cases. The change in the law shut the door pretty firmly on employment damages and it would likely take a change in the law to open that door again. While the tax arguments can be made, one must balance that with any revenue loss that would be incurred when exempting all non-physical injuries from taxation.

S2KM: In arguing for more damages to be excluded as “physical,” you limited your recommendation to sexual abuse and wrongful imprisonment damages. Why?

McCulloch: These are two types of cases that are clearly distinguishable and have well-documented, long term effects, as opposed to being short lived or transitory emotional/mental distress damages. As there was no Congressional intent to tax these two types of claims in the 1996, it followed that they should be excluded. Attempting to define what “is” physical on a broad basis is too difficult; taking specific types of injuries and making them per se physical resolves the difficulty in trying to make a broad, one-size fits all standard. Further, because these are two very small groups of claimants, the revenue loss would be negligible.

S2KM: From a structured settlement industry perspective, was this hearing a success? What could or should the different groups in the industry have done better?

McCulloch: It’s too early to tell what the results will be, whether it was successful or not. I was pleased the Service and Treasury were receptive to my comments, asked a lot of questions and encouraged me to seek further support from the Hill.

Dick Risk, Attorney, Risk Law Firm
Risk offered two comments after the hearing. First, what he, as commissioner of the IRS, would say to staff.

The proposed revision is deficient, as pointed out in the written public comments and in the testimony at the hearing, as it fails to “prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement” of Code section 104, as the law requires. The clarification of the single-claimant issue can be resolved with a single paragraph, consistent with congressional history, court decisions and the agency’s previous rulings, without creating new policy. The definition of “personal physical injury or physical sickness,” as Congress has prescribed, which other commentators have recommended, also merits inclusion in this regulation. Fix it and publish it again as a revised proposal. I do not concur that the revision should be made final in its current state. Your duty is to serve the people, not operate for the convenience of the staff. Further, it is abusive to the people you are here to serve to have suggested during the hearing that they start the process over again by requesting that the single-claimant issue be placed on the Priority Guidance Plan, without giving any assurance that the result would be any different than when the request was first made, in June 2003, accepted as a project in April 2004, and finally abandoned in late 2009.

Second, his overall take of the hearing.

I am extremely disappointed at the staff’s position in favor of pushing through a shoddy and deficient product for its own convenience that fails to address legitimate issues brought to its attention by comments from the public, rather than doing the job right.

S2KM Footnote: S2KM readers can find the various hearing-related writings of structured settlement commentators here .

Voices at the 104(a)(2) Treasury Hearing

By Jeremy Babener, S2KM Contributing Author

Yesterday, February 23, 2010, the Treasury conducted a hearing on proposed regulations to section 104 of the Tax Code. This article summarizes the hearing, as relevant to parties in the structured settlement industry.

As written previously, the proposed regulations would, in essence:

• Eliminate the requirement that damages be based on “tort or tort type rights” in order to qualify for the section 104(a)(2) tax exclusion, and
• Incorporate 1996 legislation requiring that personal injuries and sickness damages be “physical” in order to qualify for the section 104(a)(2) exclusion.

The Treasury received several written submissions from the structured settlement community, including letters from:

• Joseph Ricci, Executive Director, National Structured Settlements Trade Association (NSSTA)
• John Stanton, Counsel, NSSTA
• John McCulloch, Vice-President, Integrated Financial Settlements
• Dick Risk, Attorney, Risk Law Firm
• David Higgins, Attorney, Higgins Settlement Law
• Jack Meligan, President, Settlement Professionals Inc.

McCulloch, Stanton, Risk, and Meligan spoke at the Treasury hearing. As in their written submissions, the speakers focused on two questions. First, when do personal injury damages constitute “physical” injury damages, such that they may be excluded from plaintiffs’ taxable income? Second, can settlement monies be directed into qualified settlement funds (QSFs) in single-claimant cases without triggering economic benefit? If so, the structured settlement tax subsidy would be available to settlements involving single-claimant QSFs.

Of the five speakers (including one from the Consumers for Civil Justice who spoke briefly), only McCulloch focused on the “physical” issue, while the other three argued single-claimant QSFs.

John McCulloch:
McCulloch argued that the damages received by victims of prolonged sexual abuse or false imprisonment should always be deemed “physical,” whether or not evidence is available to demonstrate physical injury. This would, he argued, appropriately expand the “observable bodily harm” understanding of “physical” from private letter ruling in 2000. His arguments, which mirrored those in his written submission, were previously reviewed here.

Treasury Panel Response:
The panel queried McCulloch on both substantive and procedural grounds. McCulloch was asked whether his rule would define sexual abuse and wrongful imprisonment as “physical,” or establish an irrebuttable presumption that such damages are “physical.” Very likely, the question was asked with a 2008 private letter ruling in mind, which presumed physicality where the injury took place long ago. McCulloch suggested that neither sexual abuse nor wrongful imprisonment cases should be considered non-physical.

It is noteworthy that two of the panel members stressed the non-precedential nature of private letter rulings. While private letter rulings are certainly non-precedential, the panel seemed to imply that the “observable bodily harm” language from the 2000 private letter ruling is simply irrelevant for future interpretations of “physical.”

The panel also asked McCulloch a procedural question, one repeated in the single-claimant QSF discussion: Even if Treasury agrees, could it change the proposed regulations without being forced to conduct another notice and comment hearing?

Dick Risk and Jack Meligan:
Dick Risk and Jack Meligan both recommended that the Treasury issue regulations explicitly holding the economic benefit doctrine not to be triggered in the context of single-claimant QSFs. Each argued that such regulations are necessary as a result of the power imbalance in plaintiff-defendant negotiations.

Treasury Panel Response:
It became immediately apparent that the panel believed regulations concerning the single-claimant QSF issue could not be added to the proposed regulations without necessitating a new notice and comment period. It seemed implicit in the panel’s comments that the appropriate time to request regulations on the QSF issue would be the next time that taxpayers are asked for proposed issues. When asked why the issue had been removed after several years on the IRS Priority Guidance Plan, those on the panel declined to respond.

One member of the panel was particularly interested in the need for single-claimant QSF guidance based on the alleged power imbalance in plaintiff-defendant negotiations. Why, Risk was asked, is guidance necessary to establish a balance if single-claimant QSFs are already occurring? Moreover, how, since most plaintiffs have representation with knowledge of structured settlements, is there still an imbalance? Risk and Meligan both suggested that this imbalance is inherent in personal injury settlement negotiations, unless the defendant can be removed from the scene and replaced with a QSF.

John Stanton:
Stanton briefly repeated the procedural point of those on the panel that the current hearing was the wrong time and place for the single-claimant QSF issue to be discussed. He also urged that since current tax law of structured settlements has served all parties well, the Treasury should not make changes on the QSF front. The Treasury had no comments or questions for Stanton.

Series Note:
This article is the third in a series on the February 23, 2010 Treasury hearing on proposed regulations concerning section 104.

• Part 1: Treasury Hearing on IRC 104 Regulations
• Part 2: A Common Cause at the Treasury Regulation Hearing

S2KM Footnote:

• Jeremy Babener and S2KM Limited have agreed to feature occasional articles written by Babener on S2KM's blog. Except for articles including Jeremy Babener's byline or interviews featuring Babener, he does not contribute to or endorse S2KM opinions or writing.
• Babener's articles also appear on S2KM's structured settlement public policy wiki.
• Babener is a third year law student at NYU School of Law, and has written extensively about structured settlements (articles available at TaxStructuring.Com).

Treasury Hearing Commentary

S2KM will publish and update links to online commentary about the February 23, 2010 Treasury hearing for IRC section 104(a)(2) regulations on S2KM's blog "Beyond Structured Settlements" and S2KM's public wikis:

• structured settlement wiki
• structured settlement public policy wiki - featuring Robert Wood, Joseph Dehner and Jeremy Babener

S2KM

• Jeremy Babener: "Treasury Hearing on IRC 104 Regulations"
• Jeremy Babener: "A Common Cause at the Treasury Regulation Hearing"
• Jeremy Babener: "Voices at the 104(a)(2) Treasury Hearing"
• "Speaker Comments at the Treasury Hearing"
• "Treasury Hearing Commentary"
• "Legislation to Expand the Structured Settlement Industry"

The Settlement Channel - Mark Wahlstrom

• Robert Wood: "IRC Section 104 Regulations Clarified by IRS"
• Jack Meligan: "Treasury Regulations hearing next week on IRC section 104(a)(2)"

Structured Settlement 4Real - John Darer

• "IRS Hearings on IRC 104(a)(2) Tax Exclusion"
• "Jack Meligan 468B Rant on LBN"
• "Do Meligan and Babener Actions Now Reveal a Level of Panic Over Single Claimant 468B"
• "Settlement Planners Rebuffed ..."

A Common Cause at the Treasury Regulation Hearing

Written by Jeremy Babener, S2KM Contributing Author

As written previously, the Treasury will be holding a hearing on its proposed regulations for section 104(a)(2) on February 23, 2010. The proposed regulations, set forth in a nutshell:

• Eliminate the requirement that damages be based on “tort or tort type rights” in order to qualify for the section 104(a)(2) tax exclusion, and
• Incorporate 1996 legislation requiring that personal injuries and sickness damages be “physical” in order to qualify for the section 104(a)(2) tax exclusion.

Ordinarily, industry spokespersons attending would be expected to comment on “what is on the table.” However, the ongoing debate of the single-claimant qualified settlement fund issue has become of central concern for many in this industry. Richard Risk, structured settlement attorney and founder of the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP), and Jack Meligan, settlement planner and founding President of SSP, posit that the Treasury should issue regulations in favor of single-claimant qualified settlement funds. Joseph Ricci, Executive Director of the National Structured Settlements Trade Association (NSSTA), and John Stanton, counsel for NSSTA at Hogan & Hartson, argue otherwise. However, this debate focuses on hypothetical regulations that the Treasury has not proposed.

While the single-claimant issue is of much importance, the structured settlement industry should not lose sight of its chance to influence the regulations actually proposed by the Treasury. Most importantly, those at NSSTA, the SSP, and the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP), should consider working with those at the American Association for Justice (AAJ), and the National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA), who all have a common interest at the Treasury hearing: expanding the applicability of the section 104(a)(2) exclusion. Decreased taxation of damages means larger after-tax recoveries for plaintiffs, more sales for life insurance companies, and presumably, more factoring transactions. By uniting, the structured settlement industry, in tandem with AAJ and NELA, will be better able to further all interests involved (other than increasing government revenue).

John McCulloch, Vice President of Integrated Financial Settlements, and David Higgins, attorney at Higgins Settlement Law, have both written to the IRS in this vein. Both have argued for the explicit confirmation of several types of damages as “physical,” and thus tax-exempt. Most of the letters submitted to the Treasury are available at regulations.gov .

Higgins’ Proposal for the “Physical” Requirement
Higgins argues that the IRS’ definition of physical is inadequate: “direct unwanted or uninvited physical contacts resulting in observable bodily harm such as bruises, cuts, swelling, and bleeding.” He recommends a broader definition, including damages for:

1. a doctor’s misdiagnosis resulting in death or serious injury from delayed or missing treatment,
2. child neglect resulting in starvation or illness,
3. rape committed under threat of bodily harm, and
4. other situations where traditional physical injury torts occur without unwanted or uninvited physical contact or observable bodily harm.

McCulloch’s Proposal for the “Physical” Requirement
McCulloch proposes two specific examples for the IRS to include in its regulations. Examples are often found in Treasury regulations, and are used to show how the law and regulations are to be interpreted in varying situations. McCulloch's first example, if accepted, would hold that damages for emotional distress from an extended period of sexual abuse, even without proof of “observable bodily harm,” are received by plaintiff tax-free. His second example would hold that damages for wrongful imprisonment of more than one year, including a portion for resulting emotional distress, are received by plaintiff tax-free.

McCulloch's examples are based in prior IRS decisions, building on them to expand the applicability of section 104(a)(2)’s exclusion.

McCulloch's First Example (Sexual Abuse)
McCulloch notes that his first example (sexual abuse) “loosely tracks the fact pattern and conclusion reached” in a 2008 IRS Chief Counsel Advice Memorandum. There are two key differences. First, the example concerns a law suit filed “[s]ometime after” the original tort. In the 2008 memo, the law suit was not filed for a “substantial time” after the original tort. Second, McCulloch's proposal holds such damages to always constitute physical injury. The 2008 memo, noting that the substantial time lag meant that the taxpayer might have difficulty establishing the extent of his physical injuries, held that it was reasonable for the IRS to presume that the settlement compensated taxpayer for personal physical injuries. The first example thus “loosely tracks” the memo, attempting to expand its applicability, and strengthen its force.

McCulloch's Second Example (Wrongful Imprisonment)
McCulloch suggests that although there have been no observable injuries in his second example (wrongful imprisonment), “the act of physical restraint in a prison cell in this situation is inherently a type of physical injury.” He believes this to be consistent with the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which provided tax-free compensation to Japanese-Americans wrongfully imprisoned during World War II. He also argues that his example is consistent with the Tax Court’s Stadnyk v. Commissioner decision, which held damages for eight hours of false imprisonment to not constitute a physical injury.

His argument makes two taxpayer-friendly moves from the World War II and Stadnyk cases. First, the World War II decisions were made prior to the 1996 legislation requiring personal injury damages to be “physical” in order for plaintiffs to receive them tax-free. Thus, they may be no more relevant than other pre-1996 cases not requiring injuries to be “physical.” Second, the Stadnyk case, which held the eight-hour wrongful imprisonment damages to be taxable, in no way limited its decision to short-term cases. In fact, the Tax Court provided seemingly timeless language: “Physical restraint and physical detention are not ‘physical injuries’ for purposes of section 104(a)(2)….Nor is the deprivation of personal freedom a physical injury for purposes of section 104(a)(2).” McCulloch’s example and comment would create new law (since the 1996 legislation), expanding the types of damages eligible for the tax exemption.

Further Work Before the Hearing
In cooperating, the relevant associations might consider additional proposals for the IRS based on last month’s decision, Domeny v. Commissioner (T.C. Memo 2010-9). There, the Tax Court held that damages were received tax-free when made by a defendant for the causing of an acute physical illness by a stressful work environment. Proposals and examples consistent with this decision may be well aimed to preserve or expand the tax-exempt status of several types of personal injury damages.

S2KM Footnote:

• Jeremy Babener and S2KM Limited have agreed to feature occasional articles written by Babener on S2KM's blog. Except for articles including Jeremy Babener's byline or interviews featuring Babener, he does not contribute to or endorse S2KM opinions or writing.
• Babener is a third year law student at NYU School of Law, and has written extensively about structured settlements (articles available at TaxStructuring.Com).

Structured Settlement 2009 Strategic Analysis

S2KM has begun a mid-year 2009 strategic analysis of the structured settlement industry. This analysis includes attending and reporting about 2009 structured settlement professional stakeholder meetings plus continuing conversations with structured settlement industry leaders.

To organize and publish S2KM's findings and analysis, S2KM is developing, and plans to publish and update, a related public wiki titled "Structured Settlements 2009". Here is a preview of this S2KM public wiki home page.

Purposes of S2KM's Structured Settlements 2009 wiki

• Provide S2KM with a dedicated online resource to identify, capture, organize and publish 2009 structured settlement strategic analysis.
• Demonstrate how blogs and wikis can interact to improve strategic analysis and learning.
• Encourage structured settlement knowledge leaders and professional associations to endorse, encourage and participate in strategic industry analysis.
• Help all structured settlement stakeholders to better understand, improve and grow structured settlements.

Table of Contents - includes references to related 2009 conference presentations; subject to continuing wiki updates:

• S2KM primary analytic resources - S2KM blog reporting for:
  • 2009 structured settlement stakeholder meetings - the Table of Contents incorporates and features educational discussions from the following conferences:
    
    • NSSTA 2009 Winter Meeting
    • ASNP 2009 Annual Meeting
    • SSP 2009 Annual Meeting
    • NSSTA 2009 Annual Meeting
  • Structured settlement professional stakeholder association prior year meetings
  • Related topics and knowledge leaders:
    
    • Settlement consulting;
    • Tim Nay Interview.
• S2KM's transitional perspective - structured settlements are undergoing two primary transitions:
  • From claim management to settlement consulting:
    • NSSTA: Settlement Consulting - Joseph DiGangi
    • SSP: Settlement Planning Industry Update - Patrick Hindert.
    • SSP - State of the Art Settlement Planning - Joseph Tombs
    • NSSTA: Looking Forward - Chris Diamantis and Dan Durbin.
  • From historic communication, learning and work processing to Internet-based models:
    • NSSTA:Web 2.0 - Patrick Hindert.
• Public policy - no 2009 stakeholder association discussions.
• Legislation and regulations
  • Existing
    • Federal
      • SSP: Tax Panel - Richard Risk; Sylvius von Saucken; Peter Wayne.
    • State
      • SSP: Judicial Approval of Minors Settlements - Phillip McCrury.
      • NSSTA: Exemptions for Structured Settlement Payments - Craig Ulman.
  • Proposed - no 2009 stakeholder association discussions.
    • Federal
    • State
  • Political strategy
    • NSSTA: Federal Entitlement Programs - Andrew Imparato.
    • NSSTA: Washington Reports - Eric Vaughn.
    • SSP: AAJ Strategy - John Bowman.
    • NSSTA: Federal and State Issues - Len Blonder.
    • NSSTA political speakers:
      • Senator Richard Durbin (D) from Illinois;
      • Senator Charles Grassley (R) from Iowa;
      • Congressman Charles Rangle (D) from New York;
      • Congressman Kendrick Meek (D) from Florida;
      • Congressman James Langevin (D) from Rhode Island;
      • Congressman Joseph Crowley (D) from New York;
      • Congressman Dave Camp (R) from Michigan;
      • Congressman Brian Higgins (D) from New York;
      • Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz (D) from Pennsylvania;
      • Congressman Joseph Courtney (D) from Connecticut;
      • Plus the Chiefs of Staff for four congressmen.
• Case law
  • SSP: Litigation and Legislative Update - Anthony Alfieri.
  • NSSTA: Spencer v. Hartford - Michael Miller.
  • NSSTA: Fresno County Factoring Cases - Illana Hanau.
• Primary and secondary markets
  • NSSTA: Secondary Market Update - Michael Miller and Illana Hanau.
• Government benefits
  • NSSTA: Federal Entitlement Programs - Andrew Imparato.
  • ASNP: Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance - Mark Popolizio.
  • ASNP:Lien Resolution Strategies - William Browning; Mark Popolizio; Sylvius von Saucken.
  • SSP: MMSEA Section 111 - Mark Popolizio.
  • NSSTA: Medicare Panel - Roy Franco; Mark Popolizio; David Korch; Rafael Gonzoles.
  • NSSTA: Medicaid Panel - John McCulloch; Timothy O'Driscoll; Dennis McAndrews
• Structured settlement economics
  • ASNP: Structured Settlement Annuities - Jack Meligan and Michele Whitmore.
  • SSP: Life Insurance Insolvencies - Eric Nordman.
  • NSSTA: Financial Strength Ratings - William Pargeans.
• Structured settlement funding products
  • NSSTA: 468B QSFs - Henry Strong, William Winslow, James Klapps.
  • ASNP: Structured Settlement Annuities - Jack Meligan and Michele Whitmore.
  • ASNP: 468B QSFs - Richard Risk and Jason Lazurus.
  • SSP: Settlement Trusts - Christi Fried.
  • SSP: Settlement Trust Software - David Eichenbaum.
• Transactional analysis
  • ASNP: Anatomy of a SNSP Case - Frank Johns, Kevin Urbatsch, Patrick Hindert.
• Stakeholder associations
  • NSSTA (2), SSP and ASNP 2009 meetings.
• Ethics
  • NSSTA: Business Ethics - Father Oliver Williams.
  • NSSTA: Business Ethics - Mike Jones.
• Standards
  • SSP: Registered Settlement Planner - Joseph Tombs.
• Business models
  • Claim management
    • NSSTA: Plaintiff and Defense Brokers - Ronald Sullivan, James Early, Roger Bernstein, Bruce DeBacher, Michael Goodman.
    • SSP:Structured Settlement Insolvencies - Randy Dyer.
    • SSP: Growing Structured Settlements - Randy Dyer.
    • SSP: In-House Structured Settlement Programs - Kevin Mack.
    • NSSTA: Minnesota Bridge Collapse - Jerry Lothrop.
  • Settlement consulting
    • NSSTA: Settlement Consulting - Joseph DiGangi.
    • ASNP: Integrating SNSP with an Elder law Practice - Tim Nay and Sandy Conley.
    • ASNP: Marketing to the Trial Bar - Frank Johns, Jason Lazurus, Kevin Urbatsch.
    • SSP: State of the Art Settlement Planning - Joseph Tombs.