Beyond Structured Settlements

Stressed-Induced Physical Ailments - 1

In a 2010 Tax Notes article, attorney Robert Wood asks: "is physical sickness the new emotional distress?" Recent Tax Court decisions highlight both the tax issues raised by damages for stress-induced physical ailments resulting from physical sickness and the need for careful tax planning when seeking such damages.

S2KM reviewed federal legislative and regulatory tax history related to emotional distress damages as well as recommendations for related legislative changes in a prior blog post. To summarize:

• As the result of a 1996 amendment, 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 section 104(a) (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.”
• 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).”
• Although the 2012 regulations for IRC section 104(a)(2) 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”.

Some of the most challenging "emotional distress" cases, from a tax perspective, involve damages for stress-induced physical ailments resulting from physical sickness. The U.S. Tax Court has provided guidance for such cases in three recent and related decisions:

• Domeny v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2010-9.
• Parkinson v. Commissioner T.C. Memo 2010-142.
• Blackwood v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo, 2012-190.

In an article published July 19, 2012 titled "Recent U.S. Tax Court Decision Highlights Issues Regarding the Tax Treatment of Damages for Stress-Induced Physical Ailments", attorneys Jeremy Babener and Neil Kimmelfield summarize these cases and offer advice for taxpayers seeking damages for stress-induced ailments.

According to their article, the U.S. Tax Court indicated in Domeny and Parkinson "that damages compensating for stress-induced physical ailments may be tax-free where (1) the taxpayer can demonstrate that the damages were actually received on account of those ailments and (2) the physical nature of the ailments was verified by a physician, preferably based on objective medical evidence rather than the taxpayer’s subjective report of symptoms."

In the more recent Blackwood case, however, (where the taxpayer suffered insomnia, migraines, nausea, and pain in her back, shoulder, and neck) Babener and Kimmelfield state: "the taxpayer did not satisfy this standard, highlighting the difficulty of establishing that damages compensating for stress-induced physical ailments are excludable from income."

Based upon these cases, Babener and Kimmelfield conclude:

• Taxpayers seeking damages for stress-induced physical ailments will have difficulty excluding such damages under IRC section 104(a)(2) unless they " (1) obtain a medical diagnosis during the underlying dispute and (2) emphasize diagnosed physical ailments in communications with the defendant..."
• It remains uncertain whether taxpayers who obtain medical diagnoses will receive receive tax-free treatment for stress-induced physical ailments that are less acute what were present in the Domeny (multiple sclerosis) or Parkinson (heart disease) cases.

In an article titled "Tax-free Physical Sickness Recoveries in 2010 and Beyond", written prior to the Tax Court's Blackwood decision, attorney Robert Wood offered the following additional advice based upon his review of the Domeny and Parkinson cases:

1. "The facts matter and your proof of the facts matter. To exclude a payment on account of physical sickness, you need evidence that you really made the claim and that the payer was aware of it, and at least considered the claims in making the payment.
2. "Proving that you were struck isn’t part of physical sickness, but proving that you had demonstrable sickness is. You’ll need evidence of medical care, and evidence that you were claiming the payer caused your condition or caused it to worsen.
3. "The courts and the IRS shouldn’t be put in the position of trying to figure out which payments were for which claims. Spend the time to nail down as much as you can in the settlement agreement. Very frequently the IRS will accept an explicit allocation and will not go behind it.
4. "Be reasonable. If you are allocating which payments are for which claims, do not go overboard. Don’t allocate $10 to wages in an employment dispute. Don’t allocate 90 percent of a recovery in an intentional infliction of emotional distress case to physical injuries or physical sickness.
5. "When there isn’t much of a record of medical expenses and discovery in the litigation, consider what other documents you can collect at settlement time. A letter from the plaintiff’s attorney saying why the physical sickness claims were strong may help. A letter from a treating physician or an expert physician may help. Declarations may be even more persuasive than letters. Prepare what you can at the time of the settlement, or at the latest, at tax return time. Do as much as you can contemporaneously. Don’t wait for an audit to gather those things."

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.

SSP and NSSTA 2011 Annual Meetings - 1

This blog post begins S2KM's reporting and outlines results from the 2011 annual meetings of the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP - May 15-17) and the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA - May 18-20).

Elections

• NSSTA
  • President - Dan Finn
  • New Directors - Tom Donahue; Christine Logan; Kevin Silo; Mike Wostoupal
• SSP
  • President - Jack Meligan
  • New Directors - Tony Alfieri; Tim Denehy; Charles Schell; Michelle Whitmore.

Honors - NSSTA

• President's Award - Betty Gregware
• Leadership Award - Toni Warbington
• CSSC Designation Certificates
• NSSTA Past Presidents - honoring NSSTA's 25th Anniversary

Educational Programs - speakers by topic with recommended related resources from "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J), S2KM wikis and prior S2KM blog posts.

Legislative Update

• NSSTA - Eric Vaughn: Washington Update
  
• SSP - Roy Franco: HR 1063
  

Government Benefits

• NSSTA
  • MSA Panel -Toni Warbington; Doug Brand; David Korch; David Hayes
  • Special Needs Trusts - Jay Sangerman
• SSP
  • Liability MSAs - Jason Lazarus; Roy Franco; Mark Pololizio; Doug Shaw
  • Liens Panel - Roy Franco; Tevra Johnson
• Recommended resources
  • S2P2J Chapter 15 - "Government Benefits and Structured Settlements"
  • S2 wiki - "Government Benefits"

Taxation

• NSSTA: 468B QSF Funds - Martin Jacobson
• SSP
  • 468B QSF Funds - Robert Wood
  • Taxation of Damages - Robert Wood
  • Medical Expense and Estate Tax Issues - Jeremy Babener
• Recommended resources
  • S2P2J Chapter 2 - "Taxation of Damages"
  • S2P2J Section 3.08B - "Section 468B Settlement Funds"
  • S2 public policy wiki pages featuring: Robert Wood and Jeremy Babener

Stakeholder Perspectives

• NSSTA
  • Attorneys - William Robinson lll, President-Elect of the American Bar Association
  • Legal Committee Update (including secondary market) - Peter Vodola; Amy Ravitz; Kathy Scanlon
  • Financial Planners - Laura Tarbox
  • Judges - Peter Vodola, Edward Burke, Stephen Denton
  • Unions - Michael Rott
• SSP
  • Special Needs Attorneys - Kevin Urbatsch; Michele Fuller
  • Plaintiff Attorneys - Jay Fisher
• Recommended resources
  • S2P2J Chapter 4 - "Defense Counsel"
  • S2P2J Chapter 5 - "Plaintiff Counsel"
  • S2P2J Chapter 6 - "Case Preparation"
  • S2P2J Section 16.05 - "Judicial Review of Transfer Applications"
  • S2 wiki - "Secondary Market"
  • S2KM blog - "Ceron v. Henderson"

Marketing

• NSSTA: Business Communications - LuAnn Reeb
• SSP
  • Marketing to Personal Injury Attorneys - Joe Didier
  • Electronic Media and Social Networking - Mark Wahlstrom
• Recommended resources
  • S2 wiki - "S2 and KM"
  • Web 2.0 for Lawyers wiki

Practice Improvement and New Products

• NSSTA: CSSC Continuing Education Online - Karen Meyers; Kathy Moghadas
• SSP
  • Dissecting a Settlement Plan - Jack Meligan; Joseph Tombs
  • Non-qualified Assignments - Brian Michael
  • Indexed Annuities - Rick Miller
  • Re-cycling Structured Settlement Payment Rights - Anthony Prieto; Tim Denehy
• Recommended resources
  • S2P2J Section 3.06A - "Non-Qualified Assignments"
  • S2 wiki - "Re-thinking Structured Settlements"
  • S2 wiki - "Settlement Consulting"
  • S2 wiki - "Business Standards and Practices"
  • S2 wiki - "Spencer v. Hartford"
  • S2KM blog - "Online S2P2J" 

Strength of Life Companies

• NSSTA
  • Strength of Life Insurance Companies - Jim Morris, Chairman, President and CEO of Pacific Life Insurance Company
  • State Guarantee Associations - Tom Ronce; Craig Ulman
  • ELNY Update - Len Blonder; Randy Dyer; Dan Finn; Craig Ulman

• Recommended resources
  • S2P2J Section 3.05[9] - "Life Insurance Guaranty Associations"
  • S2P2J Section 3.05[10] - "Executive Life Insolvency"
  • S2KM blog - "Executive Life of New York"

For S2KM reporting and analysis of prior SSP and NSSTA meetings, see S2KM's structured settlement wiki.

New MSP Protocol in New York

Although no statutory or regulatory authority requires Medicare set-aside arrangements (MSAs) in third party liability settlements, confusion continues as to whether and when MSAs are necessary and/or appropriate for such cases.

CMS (the responsible Federal agency) has established certain basic requirements for workers compensation MSAs (WCMSA) in a series of memoranda beginning in 2001. CMS, however, has not offered any definitive statements about whether or when MSAs are needed to account for future medical expenses in liability settlements.

On May 6, 2011, the United States Attorney's Office for the Western District of New York (USAOWDNY) released a one page "Medicare Secondary Payor Protocol" (MSP Protocol) establishing a voluntary process by which that U.S. Attorney's Office will review MSA proposals for liability cases provided certain conditions are met.

The MSP Protocol issued by USAOWDNY specifically:

• Excludes liability cases involving mass torts;
• Confers no substantive rights;
• May be used or withdrawn at the unilateral discretion of the USAOWDNY;
• Provides a voluntary process; and
• Does not represent a CMS policy.

The MSP Protocol defines an MSA as: "An administrative mechanism used to allocate a portion of a settlement, judgment or award for future medical and/or future prescription drug expenses. A set-aside arrangement may be in the form of a Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Aside Arrangement (WCMSA), No-Fault Liability Medicare Set-Aside Arrangement (NFSA) or Liability Medicare Set-Aside Arrangement (LMSA)."

The MSP Protocol requires applications for MSAs in liability cases to be made jointly by the Medicare beneficiary, or his representative, and "the primary plan", presumably meaning the liability insurer or self-insurer, and additionally requires:

• A copy of the MSPRC letter stating the matter concerning repayment for historical medical items and services related to the tort was reviewed and resolved or provide adequate assurance to that effect;
• The proposed LMSA related to the tort;
• An agreed copy of the settlement agreement subject to completion of the MSP obligations;
• A joint statement from the applicants that warrants:
  • The value of the agreed settlement equals or exceeds $350,000.00;
  • The plaintiff is a Medicare beneficiary as defined under 42 C.F.R. §400.202.
  • CMS was requested to approve the LMSA, but no substantive response has been received for at least 60 days from the date of the letter to CMS; and
  • An affidavit from the preparer of the LMSA that it is:
    • True and correct based on the Medicare beneficiary’s medical records and the injuries being released; and
    • In conformance with the WCMSA submission checklist as published by CMS

Subsequent to the application, the USAOWDNY may request additional information from the parties, including a request for an additional LMSA(s). Upon receipt of all required information, the USAOWDNY will issue a Release which will compromise the LMSA obligations related to the settlement, judgment, award or other payment.

For additional S2KM reporting about MSAs and liability cases, see:

• MSAs and Liability Cases - summarizing recent recommendations for MSAs in liability cases issued by NAELA and the ABA.
• MSAs and Liability Cases - 2 - reviewing a new article by Peter Wayne which offers advice to plaintiff attorneys about Medicare compliance in liability cases.

For more detailed information about MSAs and structured settlements, see Section 15.03 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J).

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)

Death and Damages

Jeremy Babener has written a new tax article titled "Death and Damages Can be Taxing" which appears in the April 2011 issue of Trusts & Estates magazine. Written for estate planning professionals, Babener's article addresses both income and estate tax issues involved with lump sum and structured settlements.

Babener's article considers physical and emotional damages resulting from three categories of cases: wrongful death, survivor lawsuits, and pre-death causes of action. In addition to his tax analysis, Babener provides three instructive case examples plus practice tips, a summary table and extensive footnotes.

Babener's article re-affirms, from S2KM's perspective, several important settlement planning lessons:

• The complexity of settlement planning and the importance for many recipients of personal injury and wrongful death settlements to receive timely and related tax advice from tax professionals. Although Babener's audience consists of estate planning professionals who may not always contribute to case-specific pre-settlement planning, they may be called upon post-settlement to address income or estate tax problems created by a poorly planned settlement. Classic "red flag" structured settlement cases include large periodic payouts with long certain periods or large deferred lump sums.
• The importance, when planning settlements, to consider potential future tax changes including estate tax rates and/or the amounts of allowable estate tax exclusions and deductions. Recent estate tax exemptions that shelter extensive sums from any estate tax may not exist when current structured settlement recipients die with still-to-be paid periodic payments.
• The role of allocations in settlement tax planning and tax calculations. As one example, Babener discusses a wrongful death preceded by substantial pain and suffering related to the accident causing the death. Although proceeds from a wrongful death settlement are not subject to estate tax, proceeds related to the pain and suffering will be included in the decedent's estate and will be subject to a potential estate tax. In another example involving co-plaintiffs, Babener suggests naming the more injured party as the primary structured settlement payee and the less-(emotionally) injured plaintiff as contingent structured settlement beneficiary.
• The potential estate planning problems created by structured settlements including valuation of any periodic payments remaining when the primary payee dies and the potential lack of liquidity to pay estate taxes. Babener highlights a current judicial controversy potentially applicable to structured settlements related to Treasury regulations issued in 1995. These regulations provide that a "restricted beneficial interest subject to any contingency, power or other restriction" will be valued for estate tax purposes based on all facts and circumstances rather than by Treasury tables. Whether structured settlement payments are considered to be "restricted beneficial interests" (due to non-assignability clauses) becomes financially significant in calculating estate tax liability. Babener also points out the potential value or need for commutations or factoring transactions to pay estate taxes resulting from structured settlements.
• The risks for claimants and their attorneys in relying on non-tax professionals for settlement planning tax advice. This caveat was highlighted in Adrian v. Mesirow Financial Structured Settlements, a 2010 judicial decision (not mentioned in Babener's article) where a claimant alleged she was mislead by a defense broker about the favorable tax consequences of a structured settlement. In holding that the defense owed no duty to the claimant, the court found that the broker's education, certifications and years of experience related only to her work in life insurance and structured settlements and did not and should not suggest any expertise or special knowledge of tax law.

For additional tax and structured settlement articles by Jeremy Babener, see his Tax Structuring website and S2KM's structured settlement public policy wiki.

For additional information about the taxation of structured settlements, see Chapter 2 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J).

Tax Penalty Imposed on Former Plaintiff

 Greenberg v. Commissioner (T.C. 2011-18), a January 24, 2011 Tax Court decision, highlights the risks and potential penalties for improperly reporting the tax consequences of a settlement and provides a warning for advisers, including structured settlement and settlement planning consultants, who offer tax advice to recipients of settlement payments.

The Tax Court agreed with the IRS that Gary Greenberg failed to report the required portion of a $3.3 million bad faith and breach of contract award and imposed a substantial penalty for the underpayment.

Mr. Greenberg became disabled in 1990 and began receiving payments from a private disability income insurance policy he had purchased in 1988. When the life insurance company stopped making payments after eight years, Mr. Greenberg sued for insurance bad faith and breach of contract. An Arizona federal court awarded him $940,000 for past and future disability payments and premiums plus costs fees and interests. In addition, the court awarded Mr. Greenberg $2.4 million in punitive damages for a total of $3.3 million.

Mr. Greenberg failed to report any portion of the award on his tax return and did not otherwise disclose the award to the IRS. In Tax Court, Mr. Greenberg conceded the interest portion of his award was taxable but he argued that the $2.4 million of punitive damages should be received tax free "for personal injuries or sickness" under IRC section 104(a)(3).

The Tax Court disagreed and held that the punitive damages were not received "for personal injuries or sickness" and therefore constituted taxable income as did the portion of the costs and fees attributable to the punitive damages.

Gross income under IRC sections 104(a)(1)-(5) does not include amounts received for:

• (1) - Workers compensation ("as compensation for personal injuries or sickness")
• (2) - Traditional injuries ("on account of personal physical injuries or sickness")
• (3) - Accident & health insurance ("for personal injuries or sickness")
• (4) - Government pensions & annuities ("as a pension, annuity, or similar allowance for personal injuries or sickness")
• (5) - Terrorism injuries ("by an individual as disability income attributable to injuries incurred as a direct result of a terroristic or military action")

In Commissioner v. Schleier (1995), the U.S. Supreme Court implied that the language in each of the section 104(a) exclusion provisions should be read the same even if not written the same.  In 1996, Congress specifically included punitive damages in a taxpayer's gross income under section 104(a)(2).

As a result, the Tax Court in Greenberg determined a large understatement of tax and imposed an accuracy-related penalty under IRC 6662. The penalty under IRC 6662 amounts to 20% of the underpayment attributable to a taxpayer's "negligence" or "disregard of rules or regulations" or "substantial understatement" of income tax. Significantly, Mr. Greenberg did not produce any evidence that he relied on professional advice nor did he make any relevant disclosures on his tax return.

For purposes of IRC section 6662:

• "Negligence" includes any failure to make a reasonable attempt to comply with the provisions of the Tax Code.
• "Disregard of rules or regulations" includes any careless, reckless, or intentional disregard.
• A taxpayer is "careless" if he or she does not exercise reasonable diligence to determine the correctness of a tax return position contrary to the rules or regulations.
• The penalty will not be imposed on any portion as to which the taxpayer acted with reasonable cause and in good faith.
• A substantial underpayment of tax exists if an underestimate exceeds the greater of 10% of the tax required to be shown on the tax return or $5000.
• The amount of understatement is reduced if there is or was substantial authority for the taxpayer's treatment of any portion, or if the taxpayer disclosed the relevant facts affecting the tax treatment and there is a reasonable basis for the taxpayer's treatment.

Based upon these rules, Mr. Greenberg probably would not have been able to avoid tax penalties simply by visiting with a tax adviser or making disclosures on his tax return. On the other hand, had Mr. Greenberg met with a competent adviser, he probably would have reported the income on his tax return and avoided the penalty.

The Greenberg case can be compared and contrasted with the Texas case of Grillo v. Pettiete. In the Grillo case, the defendants offered periodic payments (structured settlement) to settle a medical malpractice case. Although the case settled for $2.5 million, the plaintiff attorneys rejected the structured settlement. When the settlement funds subsequently were exhausted, the Grillo family sued the plaintiff attorney and guardian ad litem for negligence and legal malpractice. The parties settled for more than $4 million.

Both the Greenberg and Grillo cases highlight why settlement recipients need good professional advice. The Grillo case more specifically points out the potential risks for settlement advisers who give bad or incomplete advice.

Thanks to Jeremy Babener for alerting S2KM about the Greenberg case. Currently a NYU Tax LL.M. Candidate, and a former Fellow at the U.S. Treasury's Office of Tax Policy, Babener's writing appears on his website Tax Structuring and is featured on S2KM's structured settlement public policy wiki.

Using Medical Costs to Lower Taxes on Emotional Distress Damages

Jeremy Babener, author of previous legal articles about structured settlements and taxation of personal injury damages, has published a new article titled "Maximizing the Medical Care Exception to the Tax on Emotional Distress Damages" in the September issue of Practical Tax Strategies.

Babener's new article, available on his Tax Structuring website, continues and expands Babener's analysis of medical expense deductions in personal injury cases. S2KM featured Babener's recent, related article titled "Taking Medical Expense Deductions Before and After a Personal Injury Suit" in this August 30, 2010 blog post,

Synopsis of Babener's new article: settlement attorneys and consultants should be aware that physical injury damages generally are received tax-free. Non-physical injury (e.g. emotional distress) damages without a physical cause, however, generally are not received tax-free. Moreover, damages received for physical symptoms resulting from emotional distress are taxable. However, if structured correctly, damages received to offset medical care costs incurred as a result of the injuries should not generate additional tax liability. Babener's new article explains how to design a settlement to maximize use of the medical care exception in cases involving emotional distress damages.

Babener has been named a 2010-11 NYU Tax Policy Fellow. In that role, he currently works at the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Tax Policy. Babener anticipates receiving his LL.M. in Taxation from NYU School of Law in Spring 2011. The NYU School of Law Magazine recently featured Babener and his writing about structured settlements.

S2KM has published a compendium of blog posts featuring Jeremy Babener's writing in S2KM's  structured settlement public policy wiki.