Beyond Structured Settlements

Structured Settlements in 2012 - 1

The U.S. structured settlement industry in 2012 increasingly defined itself into three related markets (the primary, secondary and settlement planning markets) with the liquidation of Executive Life Insurance Company of New York (ELNY) representing the dominant industry storyline.

This blog post highlights 2012 non-ELNY structured settlement developments for the primary market. Subsequent S2KM blog posts will highlight structured settlement developments for the 2) settlement planning and 3) structured settlement secondary markets and summarize 4) ELNY-related events.

Primary Market

The primary structured settlement market in 2012 was characterized by continuing sales declines including the departure of two annuity providers (Hartford and Symetra). As reported by Melissa Evola and "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J), annual structured settlement annuity premium reached an historic high in 2008 ($6,226,578,725) after consistently averaging close to $6 billion annually from 2001-2007.

The 2011 structured settlement annuity premium total of $4,974,710,838 represented an approximate 10 percent decline from 2010 and an approximate 20 percent decline from 2008. And based upon reported third quarter 2012 numbers, this year's structured settlement annuity numbers could be even lower.

Through the end of September 2012, reported nine month structured settlement annuity premium totaled $3,570,584,333 compared with 2011 ($3,638,466,321) and 2008 ($4,429,915,586) figures for similar nine month results. The comparable nine month case totals for these years: 2012 (18,701 cases); 2011 (21,846 cases); and 2008 (25,545 cases).

Many structured settlement industry participants attribute declining sales to low interest rates including future forecasts by the Federal Reserve. Market yields on U.S. Treasury securities at 30 year constant maturity peaked at 13.45 percent in 1981. Here are several historic average annual rates for 30 year Treasury securities (source: U.S. Department of the Treasury):

• 2012 (as of December 21) - 2.93%
• 2011 - 3.91%
• 2010 - 4.25%
• 2009 - 4.08%
• 2008 - 4.28%
• 2007 - 4.84%
• 2000 - 5.94%
• 1990 - 8.61%
• 1980 - 11.27%

Critics of the primary structured settlement market attribute the continuing sales decline to a broader set of factors. For example, speaking at the 2012 National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) conference, Mark Wahlstrom described 2012 as "another bad year for the primary market". He characterized declines in primary market annuity premium as a "negative trend that will eventually impact the secondary market" and identified the following causes:

• The structured settlement is an insular, closed community with aging leadership and a shrinking sales force.
• Structured settlement annuity providers, and most brokers, lack marketing and innovation skills.
• Primary market participants are intimidated by the Internet.
• Instead of offering customer solutions, the primary market continues to sell a single product.
• With historically low interest rates, that product produces a zero return when you consider inflation.
• The primary market has not responded strategically to tort reform and increasing competition from other professionals.
• By continuing their "factoring wars", the primary market has missed opportunities to cooperate with the secondary market.
• The ELNY liquidation means the primary market can no longer claim all structured settlement recipients have received 100% of their payments.

Perhaps the most positive 2012 development for the primary structured settlement industry was the remarkable business turnaround of American International Group, Inc. (AIG). Four years following its $182 billion financial bailout of AIG, the United States Department of Treasury and the Federal Reserve sold almost all of their remaining AIG ownership interest during 2012, which at one time reached 92 percent, and achieved a net positive investment return of $22.7 billion.

AIG's significant role in the U.S. structured settlement market, and the impact of AIG's 2008 financial collapse, are apparent from annual AIG structured settlement annuity premium results (compiled by Melissa Evola) with AIG's estimated annual share of the U.S. structured settlement annuity market in parentheses.

• 2002 - $1.179 billion (19%)
• 2003 - $1.195 billion (20%)
• 2004 - $1.221 billion (20%)
• 2005 - $1.316 billion (21%)
• 2006 - $1.463 billion (24%)
• 2007 - $1.468 billion (24%)
• 2008 - $1.454 billion (23%)
• 2009 - $0.429 billion (8%)
• 2010 - $0.499 billion (9%)
• 2011 - $0.395 billion (11%)

For the first three quarters of 2012, based upon Evola's reporting, AIG (Amgen/AILife) sold $409,213,518 of total structured settlement premium representing 11 percent of total U.S. structured settlement annuity premium ($3,570,584,333) for the same period. 

Additional post in S2KM's blog series: "Structured Settlements in 2012":

• Part 1 - Primary market

• Part 2 - Settlement planning

• Part 3 - Secondary market

• Part 4 - Executive Life of New York

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.

Structured Settlements in 2011 - 3

Prior S2KM 2011 year-end structured settlement blog posts have highlighted the historic significance of the ELNY liquidation and provided a strategic 2011 industry retrospective . This blog post summarizes additional important 2011 structured settlement developments and information.

Taxation

• IRS Audit Guides - The Internal Revenue Service published an Audit Guide in 2011 to assist its examiners in determining the tax treatment of proceeds from lawsuits, settlements and awards received after August 21, 1996. That date marked the enactment of the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 which added a "physical" requirement to IRC § 104(a)(2). The IRS had previously published an Audit Guide to assist its examiners in determining whether the IRC §5891 excise tax applies to specific structured settlement factoring transactions.
• JTC Structured Settlement Estimate - The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) in 2011 released its Estimates of Federal Tax Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2010-2014 (JCT Report). For the first time, the JCT Report calculated an estimated tax revenue loss for the "exclusion of investment income from structured settlement arrangements". The JCT estimate projected 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.

Government Benefits

• Medicare Secondary Payer Protocol - 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. On May 6, 2011, the United States Attorney's Office for the Western District of New York (USAOWDNY) released a one page "Medicare Secondary Payer 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.

• U.S. v. Stricker - In this case involving periodic payments and the MSP Act, a U.S. District Court in Alabama denied a motion by the U.S. Government to reconsider the court's earlier dismissal based upon its finding that the applicable statutes of limitations barred the Government's complaint. The Government had argued on appeal that the court erred in granting its motions to dismiss without considering the Government's theory of continuing accrual argument.

• WCMSA portal - The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced the creation of an Internet portal for submission of workers compensation MSA (WCMSA) proposals. The new web-based application:
  • Enables WCMSA proposals to be submitted electronically for CMS review;
  • Accepts submission documents and supplemental information CMS may request;
  • Provides online status updates for MSA applications;
  • Generates email alerts when approval letters are issued.
• Conditional payment guidelines - CMS released guidelines during 2011 to provide certainty and finality for conditional Medicare payments. This "self-calculated final conditional payment amount" option, will be initiated in February 2012 for claims with a total settlement value of $25,000 or less allowing attorneys and/or claimants to receive a final amount owed number from CMS prior to settlements. For additional information see the Medicare Secondary Payer Recovery Contractor (MSPRC) website.

Minors Settlements - Whether a structured settlement annuity that extends beyond the age of majority is "suitable" for, or in the "best interests" of, a minor (especially a minor without a debilitating injury) represents an important industry issue. In his 2009 presentation to the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) titled "What Judges Look for When Approving a Minor's Settlement", Texas attorney Phillip McCrury surveyed state minors' statutes and concluded many states require judges to consider the "best interest" of a minor even though very few states directly address structured settlement annuities. Two 2011 cases (only one involving a structured settlement) highlight the potential for conflicting judicial interpretations when annuities are part of a proposed minor's settlement.

• Hancock v. Share - A Florida Appellate Court reversed a Florida Trial Court ruling that denied approval of a proposed structured settlement for a minor. Although the trial court had found that the proposed structured settlement was in the "best interests" of the minor, it refused to approve the structured settlement citing a Florida statute that prohibits a guardian "to bind the assets" of a minor beyond the age of majority.
• In the Matter of Sandra McDuffie - A New York trial court ruled against an estate administrator who proposed to purchase an annuity for a minor child of the decedent stating "the Court cannot authorize the administrator to restrict funds due to an infant after the infant has reached the age of [majority]".

Executive Life Insurance Company of California - In a legal dispute (Aurora S.A. v. Poizner) which it characterized as "another aspect of the dizzyingly complex and heavily litigated failure of the Executive Life Insurance Company", a California Court of Appeals on August 8, 2011 upheld a trial court decision that California's Insurance Commissioner correctly declined to approve the proposed sale of Aurora National Life Assurance Company (Aurora) by Aurora S.A. to Reassure America Life Insurance Company (REALIC), a Swiss Reinsurance subsidiary.

Structured Settlement Annuity Sales - S2KM acknowledges and appreciates receiving market recap reports highlighting quarterly structured settlement annuity sales (Melissa Evola) and weekly financial market data (Richard Nahill).

• Annuity sales - Evola's most recent quarterly compilation of 2011 structured settlement annuity sales (thru September 30) indicates 21,846 cases have been structured for a total premium of $3,633,489,474. These numbers represent a significant decrease from 2010 (also thru September 30) of 23,578 cases and $4,140,704,642 of premium.
• Interest rates - Nahill's most recent 2011 financial market recap (for week ending December 16) shows interest rates of 1.86 percent for 10-year U.S. Treasury bonds compared with 3.30 percent as of December 31, 2010.

For prior S2KM annual reports summaring structured settlement industry developments, see the structured settlement wiki.

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.

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)

Robert Wood and 468B Funds - 2

Robert W. Wood has written a new legal treatise titled "Qualified Settlement Funds and Section 468B" published as a tax portfolio by Tax Management Inc., a subsidiary of The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (BNA). Although Wood's new publication is part of Tax Management's U.S. Income portfolio library, copies of Wood's 468B portfolio can be purchased individually for $400.

Wood's new 468B treatise bears the same title and addresses the same subject matter as the 2009 legal textbook he wrote for the Tax Institute. S2KM reviewed Wood's 2009 468B textbook when it was first published ("Robert Wood and 468B Funds") and S2KM's earlier review is generally applicable to Wood's newer work. Wood's newer publication, however, is more condensed (64 pages plus worksheets and bibliographies) than his textbook. Wood's 468B portfolio also includes a comprehensive Table of Contents which makes the portfolio's content easy to navigate.

Wood's new 468B treatise features the same excellent analysis of the single claimant controversy as his earlier 468B textbook which S2KM summarized in reviewing Wood's textbook. In both publications, Wood's single claimant analysis addresses:

• What constitutes multiple claimants?
• Control and commissions
• Doctrine of constructive receipt
• Economic benefit doctrine
• Periodic payments to personal physical injury claimants

In the context of 468B distributions, Wood's two 468B publications also address:

• Structured settlement distributions
• Structuring attorney fees
• Taxable non-qualified structures

In addition to Wood's own work, two recent developments have supplemented and supported his single claimant analysis:

• The tax treatment of single-claimant 468B qualified settlement funds (QSFs) has been eliminated from the U.S. Treasury Priority Guidance Plan (see:"U.S. Treasury Priority Guidance Plan 2009-2010") underscoring Wood's observation: "there appears to be no authorities on the point one way or the other."
• Jeremy Babener's 2009 article "Structured Settlements and Single-Claimant Qualified Settlement Funds: Regulating in Accordance with Structured Settlement History" (see: "Jeremy Babener's QSF Paper") which:
  • Traces how far Congress and the IRS have eroded the original application of two tax doctrines, economic benefit and constructive receipt, to structured settlements; and
  • Recommends the United States Treasury eliminate any ambiguity about 468B single-claimant QSFs and allow such use consistent with existing structured settlement public policy and structured settlement tax law.

Significantly and unfortunately, the traditional structured settlement industry continues to avoid the topics of 468B QSFs and the single claimant controversy in its general education programs, despite:

• The importance and increasing use of 468B QSFs;
• The advantages 468B QSFs offer defendants, plaintiffs - and the U.S. Treasury;
• The availability of excellent 468B educators and educational resources.

As Wood points out in his 468B portfolio: much of the "hysteria" surrounding the single claimant controversy results from a structured settlement problem: control and commissions.

Rather than addressing 468B QSFs and the single claimant controversy openly and intelligently, the traditional structured settlement industry (in S2KM's opinion) has adopted a combative "protect and preserve" attitude. Not only does this "protect and preserve" attitude toward 468B QSFs represent a conflict with, and disservice to, the structured settlement industry's clients and customers, it also restricts necessary and meaningful discussion about how to improve and grow the structured settlement industry itself.

The Wood & Porter website provides a comprehensive list of books and articles written by Robert Wood.

Additional S2KM reporting and analysis about IRC 468B Qualified Settlement Funds:

• 468B Settlement Funds - Definitions
• Robert Wood QSF Interview
• Jeremy Babener Interview-2
• IRC 468B Funds Revisited - 3
• IRC 468B and 5891

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.

S2P2J Release 47

Release 47 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J), co-authored by Daniel Hindert, Joseph Dehner and Patrick Hindert, and published by Incisive Media, features extended discussions about structured settlement public policy and structured settlement business models, standards and practices.

Public policy issues addressed in Release 47:

• Does structured settlement public policy support:
  • Single claimant IRC section 468B qualified settlement funds?
  • Court-approved structured settlement factoring transactions pursuant to IRC 5891 and state structured settlement protection statutes?
• Do personal injury victims have a greater propensity to dissipate their financial resources than non-personal injury victims?
• Should the existence of the secondary market disqualify annuities as a funding option for special needs trusts?
• Does the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 apply to structured settlement annuities?
• Why should structured settlement annuities cost less than lump sum alternatives to fund Medicare set-aside arrangements (MSAs)?

Business standards and practice issues addressed in Release 47:

• Traditional structured settlement business models;
• Spencer v. Hartford class action lawsuit;
• Fresno County factoring cases;
• The J.G. Wentworth bankruptcy and related credit crunch;
• New "best interest" test in California's revised protection statute;
• SSP's Standards of Professional Conduct.

S2P2J Release 47 also tightens S2P2J's existing analysis (Chapter 15) about the interaction of structured settlement annuities with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and updates industry developments generally.

S2P2J Release 48 will analyze how health care reform impacts structured settlements and also will feature a new chapter about IRC section 468B qualified settlement funds.

For prior S2KM analysis of related issues see S2KM's:

• structured settlement wiki; and
• structured settlement public policy wiki;
• web 2.0 for lawyers wiki;
• as well as prior S2KM blog posts.