Beyond Structured Settlements

SSP and NSSTA 2011 Annual Meetings - 3

Whether and when personal injury settlements are taxable to their recipients represents one of the most important structured settlement legal issues. Both the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) and the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) featured multiple tax presentations during their 2011 educational conferences.

At the SSP conference, Robert Wood and Jeremy Babener each separately addressed multiple settlement tax issues. Wood discussed: "468B Qualified Settlement Funds" (QSFs) and "Common Settlement Tax Mistakes and How to Fix Them". Babener's SSP presentation addressed three topics:

• Maximizing the medical expense deduction;
• Emotional distress and the medical care exception; and
• Inheritance of personal injury proceeds.

The NSSTA conference also featured a QSF presentation by Martin Jacobson titled "The Ins and Outs of 468B Funds". In addition, NSSTA's Legal Committee Update included a summary of a 2011 tax case, Espinoza v. Commissioner, plus an introduction to IRC Section 5891 as part of a discussion about the secondary structured settlement market.

Wood, who has written both a textbook and a Tax Management portfolio about QSFs, utilized case examples to explain several QSF issues: when is a QSF available; formation of a QSF; who should serve as QSF administrator; what are the QSF administrator's responsibilities; determining QSF income and deductions; information reporting responsibilities; amounts to report and forms to use; reporting of structured settlements; and terminating a QSF.

In his presentation about identifying and fixing settlement tax mistakes, Wood highlighted several issues: the need for professional tax computations; interest is always taxable; punitive damages; attorney fees; tax allocations; miscellaneous itemized deductions; above-the-line deductions; the unclear scope of section 104; sex abuse and wrongful imprisonment cases; the Murphy case; constructive receipt; employment disputes; Form 1099; as well as qualified and non-qualified structured settlements. For related writing by Wood, see the Wood & Porter website as well as S2KM's structured settlement public policy wiki.

Like Wood, Babener is both a prolific writer about settlement tax issues, as evidenced by Babener's website and related commentary appearing on S2KM's structured settlement public policy wiki, and a frequent speaker at educational conferences sponsored by SSP and the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP). Also similar to Wood, Babener's SSP presentation and handouts utilized case examples (as well as tables) to help communicate his analysis. Equally appropriate for their audience, both Wood and Babener emphasized settlement tax planning and incorporated structured settlements into their discussions.

Jacobson's QSF discussion at the NSSTA conference specifically addressed the single claimant issue. Jacobson focused his analysis on the statutory language of IRC 468B, related Treasury Regulation 1.468B-1(c) and related Revenue Procedure 93-34.

• Treasury Regulation 1.468B-1(c) requires and permits a QSF to be "established to resolve or satisfy one or more contested or uncontested claims that have resulted or may result from an event (or related series of events) that has occurred and that has given rise to at least one claim asserting liability ..." (emphasis added).
• Revenue Procedure 93-34 sets forth the rules under which a QSF will be considered a "party to the suit or agreement" for purposes of Section 130 and includes a stipulation that all Section 130 requirements still apply (emphasis added).

Jacobson highlighted the issue of whether Revenue Procedure 93-34 means that constructive receipt and economic benefit apply to single claimant QSF-funded Section 130 Qualified Assignments. For purposes of the single claimant QSF issue, Jacobson identified what he termed "the real questions":

• Does a single claimant have economic benefit of the funds placed in the QSF?
• Does the single claimant have "unqualified availability" of those funds?
• Has IRC Section 130(c) been satisfied?
• Is there going to be an IRS ruling applicable to single claimant QSFs?
• In the continuing absence of such an IRS ruling, Jacobson quoted Robert Wood's recommendation to "avoid the single claimant controversy" by establishing QSFs with multiple claimants.

With deference to Martin Jacobson for his valuable presentation and gratitude that NSSTA's educational programs have begun to address important and controversial industry issues, S2KM suggests these additional "real questions" concerning single claimant QSFs:

• Why haven't any NSSTA or SSP members applied for one or more IRS rulings applicable to single claimant QSFs?
• For example, what constitutes "multiple claimants" for purposes of QSFs - multiple family members as claimants? government liens? a plaintiff attorney's compensation claim?
• Does public policy favor or not favor single claimant QSFs? If not, why not?
• As Jeremy Babener addresses in his important QSF paper, how far has existing federal legislation eroded the applicability of the constructive receipt and economic benefit tax doctrines to structured settlements:
  • Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988 - allowing "secured creditor status"; and
  • Victims of Terrorism Tax Relief Act of 2001 - allowing transfers of payment rights ("factoring") pursuant to state protection statutes.

For additional information about:

• Structured settlement tax issues - see Chapter 2 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J);
• Single claimant 468B QSFs - see S2KM's blog post "Single Claimant QSF Update"
• SSP and NSSTA 2011 Annual Meetings - see S2KM's structured settlement wiki.

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).

Deducting Punitive Damages

The income tax exemption provided in Section 104(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code for "any damages" received "on account of personal physical injuries or physical sickness" specifically excludes "punitive damages".

A separate but related issue: should defendants be able to deduct punitive damages on their tax returns?  Right now, they can. The benefit to defendants is obvious. What about plaintiffs?  Since the after-tax cost of every dollar paid is lower, should plaintiffs receive more?

Proposals to disallow the deduction have been made multiple times. The Clinton administration proposed it in the 1990s, and the Obama Administration has resurrected the idea. In response, several policy articles have been published debating the merits of allowing defendants to deduct punitive damages, and discussing alternative policies. SK2M asked Jeremy Babener, a 2010-11 NYU Tax Policy Fellow, to explain the tax issues involved and the arguments being made.

Introduction

As part of his 2010, 2011, and 2012 revenue proposals, President Obama proposed to end defendants’ ability to deduct punitive damages.

Currently, punitive damages incurred in connection with a defendant’s business are tax deductible. Consider a plaintiff’s request to a jury for $1 million in punitive damages. If the defendant can deduct the $1 million of damages against $1 million of income taxed at 35%, the true cost of the award to defendant is $650,000. Juries are sometimes informed of the tax consequences of damages, and sometimes not.

The Obama Administration argues that the deduction's effect of lowering the true cost to defendants “undermines the role of such damages in discouraging and penalizing certain undesirable actions or activities.”

Polsky and Markel

Gregg Polsky (University of North Carolina School of Law) and Dan Markel (Florida State University College of Law) argue in Taxing Punitive Damages that rather than changing tax law, juries should be informed of the tax consequences of damages. Thus, in the above example, a jury might award plaintiff $1.5 million, knowing that the after-tax cost to defendant would be $1 million. The effect of the Obama proposal, they posit, would likely be circumvented by settlements that allocate less to nondeductible punitive damages, and more to deductible compensatory damages. The IRS may find it difficult to identify and correct such improper settlement allocations.

Zelenak

Lawrence Zelenak (Duke University School of Law), in response to Polsky and Markel, makes two points. First, he suggests that while it might be better to end deductions for punitive portions of damage awards, punitive portions of settlements should remain deductible. Less than five percent of plaintiffs who go to trial are awarded punitive damages. Since it is impossible to identify which settling defendants would have been forced to pay punitive damages, and to determine the amount of such damages, Zelenak argues that punitive damage portions of settlements should be fully deductible.

Second, Zelenak argues that the Polsky and Markel solution ignores the deterrence role of punitive damages. In part, punitive damages are supposed to force a defendant to pay for the costs to injured parties who could not or would not bring legal action. If those injured parties had sued, the defendant would have been able to deduct the resulting compensatory damages. From a deterrence point of view, therefore, the defendant should be able to deduct the punitive damages paid to plaintiff that substitute for deductible compensatory damages. Zelenak writes that Polsky and Markel focused only on the punishment rationale for punitive damages, which suggests that a reduction in the true cost of punitive damages, via deductibility, reduces defendants' intended punishment. Of course, as Zelenak concludes, balancing the punishment and deterrence rationales of punitive damages is very difficult.

Mogin

Paul Mogin (Williams & Connolly, LLP), also in response to Polsky and Markel, argues three separate points. First, many courts prevent defendants from encouraging reductions in damage awards by either informing juries when plaintiffs will receive damages tax-free, or by introducing evidence of a plaintiff’s previous reimbursement for economic losses. Therefore, Mogin writes, allowing plaintiff to introduce defendant’s ability to deduct punitive damages would create a “pro-plaintiff imbalance.”

Second, Mogin asserts that providing juries with additional encouragement to increase punitive damages would exacerbate juries’ already distorted pro-plaintiff perception of corporate defendants. While evidence of a defendant’s wealth is generally inadmissible in court, the rule does not typically hold for punitive damages. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the presentation of a defendant’s wealth “creates the potential that juries will use their verdicts to express biases against big business.” Thus, Mogin argues, juries should not be further encouraged to increase punitive damages awards.

Third, Mogin criticizes Polsky and Markel for elevating the jury’s assessment of punitive damages above its rightful place. Historically, judges have reduced or set aside unduly harsh punitive damages. Moreover, while the jury’s role is one of fact-finder, the measure of punitive damages is hardly factual. Why then should it be so important that the true cost of defendant’s damages are exactly equal to the amount the jury intended?

There's Always More

Several other papers have been written on disallowing defendant deductions for punitive damages, including a 2010 article published by the Heritage Foundation, and a 2001 report by the New York State Bar Association.

Jeremy Babener's articles on the taxation of personal injury damages and structured settlements are available at TaxStructuring.Com. Babener is a 2010-11 NYU Tax Policy Fellow. Having worked for the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Tax Policy in the Fall of 2010, he will graduate from NYU School of Law's Graduate Tax Program this Spring.

For additional information about Internal Revenue Code Section 104(a)(2), punitive damages and the allocation of damages for tax purposes, see section 2.03 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments".

JCT Structured Settlement Estimate

The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) has released its Estimates of Federal Tax Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2010-2014 (JCT Report) and the estimated tax revenue loss for structured settlements may surprise many structured settlement and settlement planning stakeholders.

The first surprise: for what appears to be the first time, the JCT staff actually calculates an estimated tax revenue loss for the "exclusion of investment income from structured settlement arrangements" in its annual JCT Report.

The second surprise: the JCT Report estimates the structured settlement tax revenue loss to be "de minimis" - meaning less that $50 million for Fiscal Years 2010-2014 or less than $12.5 million per year.

The JCT staff prepares its report on tax expenditures annually for the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee for their use in budget analysis and for determining the relative merits of achieving specific public policy goals through tax benefits or direct outlays. The JCT staff also submits its tax expenditure report to the House and Senate Budget Committees. "Tax expenditures" are defined in the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (the "Budget Act") and include any reductions in income tax liabilities resulting from special tax provisions or regulations that provide tax benefits to specific taxpayers.

Since 1982, IRC section 104(a)(2) has included a tax subsidy for structured settlements and periodic payment judgments. Under IRC section 104(a)(2): gross income does not include "the amount of any damages (other than punitive damages) received (whether by suit or agreement and whether as lump sums or as periodic payments) on account of personal physical injuries or physical sickness". When utilized as settlements, such periodic payment agreements are commonly referred to as "structured settlements".

JCT Reports historically do provide estimates of tax revenue loss resulting generally from the "exclusion of damages on account of personal physical injuries or physical sickness". The current JCT estimate for 2010-2014 is $7.9 billion. Until this year, however, the JCT Report never provided a specific estimate for structured settlements.

The JCT estimate of "de minimus" structured settlement tax revenue loss (under $12.5 million per year) appears especially small compared with statements from structured settlement and some settlement planning consultants aggressively promoting structured settlement tax savings for injury victims.

Compare also the value of the structured settlement tax subsidy as estimated by Jeremy Babener in his 2009 paper titled "Justifying the Structured Settlement Tax Subsidy: The Use of Lump Sum Settlement Monies"- between $360 million and $840 million per year.

Admittedly a "back-of-the-envelope range", Babener generated his tax subsidy estimate based upon input from structured settlement:

• authors - including Law Professor Adam Scales;
• experts - including William Neff, a tax partner at Hogan Lovells; and
• practitioners - including Joseph Tombs, Chairman of the Registry of Settlement Planners.

As documented in footnote 16 of Babener's paper, both Scales and Neff estimated the IRC section 104(a)(2) tax subsidy adds at least 20% to the value of certain structured settlements. Because of low income and/or deductions, however, not all structured settlement recipients benefit from the tax subsidy. Tombs estimated that only 30% of structured settlement recipients actually receive a significant reduction in their future income taxes while Neff believed the majority of structured settlement recipients are net taxpayers.

To calculate his $360 million to $840 million estimate of annual structured settlement tax benefits, Babener assumed:

• $6 billion per year of structured settlement annuity premium;
• A range of 30% to 70% as the likely percentage of structured settlement recipients receiving the tax benefit;
• An average 20% tax benefit for every structured settlement recipient who actually does receive a tax benefit.

Babener additionally pointed out::

• The value of the structured settlement tax subsidy also constitutes lost revenue to the U.S. Treasury;
• The cost of the subsidy to the U.S. Treasury in lost revenue has been largely ignored in structured settlement literature;
• Potential government savings exist that accompany the structured settlement tax loss including a reduction in the number of public benefit dependents.

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.

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.

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.

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.