Hartford & Josephine Shelton, Petitioner
T.C.
'T .C . Memo . 2009-11 6 UNITED STATES TAX COURT HARTFORD AND JOSEPHINE SHELTON Petitioners v .
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No . 16278-07 . fled May 26, 2009 .
Hartford and Josephine Shelton, pr se .
Rebecca Dance Harris , for respondent .
MEMORANDUM . FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINIO N GOEKE, Judge : Respondent determin d a .deficiency of $46,395 in petitioners' Federal income tax and an accuracy-related penalty of $9,279 under section 6662 fo 2004 .1 The issues fo r decision are : (1) Whether pursuant t o 'Unless otherwise indicated, all se the Internal Revenue Code .
petitioners may-exclude from their gross income the settlement proceeds received by petitioner wife .' We hold that the settlement award is gross income and not excludable ; and (2 ) whether petitioners are liable for an' : accuracy-related penalt y under section 6662 for their failure .to report the settlement proceed's . We hold that they are not .
.
FINDINGS OF FAC T Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found .
The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits ar e ncororated herein by this reference . At the time they file d ¢( ~~ ,ICI - a h = 14 ( , i their ',petition, : petitioners resided in Virginia .
Petitioner wife was hired by the Dial Corp . (Dial) at some , aN ~iitimeLbefore 1999 . Petitioner husband'is disabled and unable to -'work':'.I;While employed at Dial petitioner wife was subject t o Lexual hharassment by her supervisor . ,j 'Petitioner wife's, , ii I supervisor repeatedly harassed her, made references to petitioner husband's disability, and refused to stop after petitioner wife .
rebuffed his advances . Petitioner wife complained about th e harassment to Dial's management, but!no corrective action was taken„and petitioner wife's employer retaliated against her . As a result of her complaints, petitioner wife was routinely assigned to menial labor or given the`'least desirabl e .
;g(cid:127) a assignments .
Although petitioner wife was"subjelt to harassment by her immediate supervisor, she was also'hara sed by other members of Dial's management . Petitioner wife developed severe emotional problems and began to receive medical help . Petitioner wife began and continues to take antidepress .nts and other medication to deal with the physical effects of he~-harassment .
On May 20,' 1999, the Equal Employm nt Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a complaint against Dial in the U .S . District Court for the Northern District of 'Illinois . The complaint alleged that Dial had engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination against a class of female employees .bas d upon their sex by :
.
subjecting them to a hostile and abusive work environment and that Dial failed to remedy this situati n after the company had become aware of the alleged harassment .
On April 29, 2003, the EEOC and Dial entered into a consen t decree . The consent decree provided in pertinent part that Dia l would pay $10 million (the settlement p oceeds) to be distributed to all eligible class members . The decree also provided for corrective action on Dial's part to prevent future instances o f sexual harassment . Petitioner wife was a member of the class of workers eligible for a portion of the s E ttlement proceeds .
In order to receive the settlement proceeds, an eligibl e claimant had to sign a release form discharging Dial from liability for all past instances of sex I ~' al harassment . Th e release provided in pertinent part that the settlement proceed s were for emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental .
anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and nonpecuniary losses . Th e release did not provide any information concerning the proper treatment of the settlement funds fors Federal tax purposes .
However, a claimant who signed the release acknowledged that th e settlement amount might be subject, in whole or in part, t Federal and State income taxation . Petitioner wife signed a release and received $123,500 from Dial in 2004 . Dial issued a Form 1099-MISC, Miscellaneous Income, to petitioner wif e .1 "reporting income of $123,500 .
.
h Petitioner wife contacted the Internal Revenue Service (IRS ) at some .po.int .after receiving the settlement proceeds to determine their proper treatment . The IRS representative informed petitioner wife that in somejsituations settlement proceeds could be excluded from income if they were paid on accountlof physical injury . Petitioner wife, having suffere d physically as a result of her supervisor's harassment , believed that ;; the settlement proceeds were paid to compensate her fo r ,those injuries .
On October 14, 2005, petitioners fileda joint Form 1040, Ip U .S . Individual Income Tax . Return, for tax year 2004 .
'Petitioners" Form 1040 was prepared by a ,paid return preparer .
II Petitioner wife informed the return preparer that the-settlemen t proceeds were paid to compensate her fo physical injury . I n accordance with petitioner wife's repre entations, the return preparer did not include the settlement proceeds on petitioners ' return .
On April 23, 2007, respondent issu d a notice of deficienc y (the notice ) to petitioners for 2004 . 1espondent determined in the notice that petitioners were required to include the settlement proceeds in gross income and that petitioners were '' liable for a section 6662 accuracy - related penalty . On July 18, 2007, petitioners timely petitioned this Court for a redetermination of their tax liability .
.
OPINION
Gross income generally includes all income from whatever source derived .
Sec . 61 (a) . The definition of gross income-i s broad in scope, while exclusions from income are narrowly construed .
Commissioner it . Schleier , 5 5 U .S . 323, 328 (1995) .
Damages (other than punitive) received n account of personal physical injuries or physical sickness ay generally be excluded from gross income . Sec . 104(a)(2) . Fo the damages to be excluded under this provision, the unde lying cause of action must be based in tort or tort-type rights, and the proceeds-.must, be damages received on account of personal physical injury or, sickness .
Commissioner v . .Schleier , su ra at 337 . Emotiona l distress is not treated as a personal p aysical .injury or physical sickness except .for damages not in excess of the amount paid-for medical'lcare attributable to emotional distress . Sec . 104(a ) (f lush language) J j Petitioners focus on the severity of the harassment ;; and the physical ailments'that it caused ..in arguing,that they are not required to include the settlement proceeds in gross income . ,~ INry Petitioner wife contends that the settptlement(cid:127)proceeds should no t it ~~ f be taxable because after 'being harassed she was not the same w, person ~physically . Petitionerwife points,to the fact .that she sought medical help and continues tolltake medication to deal with the physical effects of the harassment . Respondent does!~,.not argue that the underlying cause of action in this case is not a IF ; tort or ,jtort- type right ; instead, respondent argues thatIrthe E damageslppetitioner wife received were not on account of personal physical injuries or physical sickness .
.i .
Although petitioners 'argue that ;, petitioner wife suffere d physical injury-as a result of her sexual harassment, .that injur y does .,,not meet the requirements of . section 104 . Petitioner wife, l is J although she suffered physically, . was li not compensated for that physical injury . . Petitioners do not claim that-any-portion o f the settlement proceeds were to reimblurse them for amounts paid for medical care attributable to emotdonal_distress .
See sec . .
104 (a) d( ( flush language) ;, Sanford v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo .
5 8 L iiP suffering, inconvenience, mental anguis loss of enjoyment of i life, and nonpecuniary losses, not physical .injury . Damages ' received on account of emotional stress, even when resultan t physical symptoms occur, are not excludable from income under, section 104(a)(2) .
Hawkins v . Commissiner , T .C . Memo . 2005-149 .
Because petitioner wife did not receive the settlement proceed s on account of personal physical injury or sickness, petitioner s must include those amounts in gross inc me . See Sanford v .
Commissioner , supra ; Shaltz v . Commissi'ner, T .C . Memo . 2003-173 Accuracy-Related Penalt y Respondent determined that petitioners are liable for an accuracy-related penalty under section 662 for negligence or disregard of rules or regulations . Section 6662(a) and (b)(1) .
imposes a 20-percent penalty on an unde payment of tax that results from negligence or disregard of rules or regulations .
Section 6662(c) defines the term "negli ence" to include "any failure to make a reasonable attempt to comply with the provisions of this title", .and the term "disregard" to include "any careless, reckless, or intentional disregard . " The section 6662 penalty is inapplicable to the extent the taxpayer had reasonable cause for the underpayment and acted in good faith . Sec . 6664(c)(1) . The determination of whether th e taxpayer acted with reasonable cause and in good faith is made on a case -by-case basis, taking into account the relevant facts and circumstances .- Sec . 1 .6664-4(b)(1), 'Income Tax Regs .
;`.Circumstances that . may indicate reasonable cause and good faith include an honest misunderstanding of . fact or law that is reasonable in light of all of the facts and circumstances , including the experience, knowledge „and education of th e taxpayer ."
Id .
Generally, the most,important factor is the extent ?gi,of the taxpayer'-s efforts .to assess the proper ta x II ..
liability .
Id .
An honest misunderstanding of fact or,law tha t is reasonable in the light of the experience, knowledge,and education of the taxpayer may indicate reasonable cause and goo d faith :1111~' Remy v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 1997-72 .
petitioners have no experience or education in tax law and sought'~advice from the IRS in order to determine the proper treatment of the settlement proceeds, The IRS employee informe d petitioner wife that in some circumstances settlement proceed s couldl'be excluded if they were paid to compensate for physical injuries . Petitioner wife believed,that the proceeds were pai d to compensate her for physical injury . This belief was reasonable ; as a result of the harassment petitioner . wife did no t feel tiiat s.he was the same physically . Petitioner wife s belief pis supported by the fact that petitioner wife required medical phelp and began taking numerous medications soon after th e harassment began . We find petitioners' mistaken,belief that the ;li p ,settlement proceeds were for physical injury to be reasonable .
Petitioners acted reasonably and in goo faith when they informed their return preparer that the settleme t proceeds were paid o n account of physical injury . See Stadny v . . Commissioner , T .C .
Memo . 2008-289 ; Pettit v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2008-87 ; Gibson v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2007 224 . Viewing all of the circumstances, including the experience knowledge, and education of petitioners, we conclude that petiti ners have demonstrated reasonable cause for failing to report he settlement proceeds a s income and that they acted in good fait Accordingly, petitioners are not liable for the accu acy-related penalty .
To reflect the foregoing, Decision will be entered for respondent as to the deficiency and for petitioners as t the accuracy-related ena t '.
Chat with this case using AI
Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this case, check whether it is still good law, and see every case that cites it. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.