O'Gilvie vs. US: The Final Word on the Taxation of Punitive Damages?

By Wells, Wayne R.; Kurtz, Janell M. | The National Public Accountant, January-February 1998 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

O'Gilvie vs. US: The Final Word on the Taxation of Punitive Damages?


Wells, Wayne R., Kurtz, Janell M., The National Public Accountant


Introduction

In December, 1996, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of O'Gilvie vs. US. In a six to three decision, the court held that punitive damages received as part of a wrongful death award were not excluded from taxable income by IRC. Sec. 104(a)(2), which excludes "any damages received on account of personal injuries."

The Supreme Court heard the case because US Circuit Courts of Appeal disagreed over the application of IRC. Sec. 104(a)(2) to punitive damages awarded in personal injury cases. The Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits held such punitive damages were taxable, while the Sixth Circuit held they were excluded. The Supreme Court agreed with the Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits and held punitive damages were not excluded from gross income by Inc. Sec. 104 (a)(2).

O'Gilvie

The petitioners in O'Gilvie were the husband and two children of Betty O'Gilvie, who died in 1988 of toxic shock syndrome. They received a jury award of $1,525,000 actual damages and $10,000,000 punitive damages. The petitioners paid the income tax on the punitive damages and sued for a refund in Federal District Court. The District Court held the punitive damages were excluded from income as they were "on account of personal injuries" as provided in IRC. Sec. 104(a)(2). The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court, and held the punitive damages were not excluded from taxable income.

The petitioners in O'Gilvie made three primary arguments to the Supreme Court:

That the "any" language in IRC. Sec. 104(a)(2) should be interpreted to include any damages, including punitive; Congress included compensation for lost wages within the 104(a)(2) exclusion because Congress intended injured parties to recover this compensation without tax consequences, and it is often difficult to determine what was lost wages and what was other damages. The same logic should apply to punitive damages as it is often difficult to distinguish punitive damages from compensatory damages, and arguably, Congress intended injured parties to recover these damages without tax consequences; Congress amended 104(a)(2) in 1989 to add "the exclusion shall not apply to any punitive damages in connection with a case not including physical injury or physical sickness." If Congress had intended to tax all punitive damages, such an amendment would not have been necessary.

As to the petitioner's first argument, the Supreme Court stated, "These arguments ... show only that one can reasonably read the statute's language in different ways. They do not overcome our interpretation of the provision in Schleier."

In June, 1995, the US Supreme Court decided the case of C.I.R. vs. Schleier. Also in a six-to-three decision, the Court held that damages received pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) were fully taxable and not excluded by Sec. 104(a)(2). The Court said, "Whether one treats respondent's attaining the age of 60, or his being laid off on account of his age, as the proximate cause of respondent's loss of income, neither the birthday nor the discharge can fairly be described as a personal injury or sickness."

The Court in Schleier also stated, "In age discrimination, the discrimination causes both personal injury and loss of wages, but neither is linked to the other. The amount of back wages recovered is completely independent of the existence or extent of any personal injury. In short, 104(a)(2) does not permit the exclusion of respondent's back wages because the recovery of back wages was not on account of any personal injury and because no personal injury affected the amount of back wages recovered." As to the liquidated damage part of the money received, the Court used the same analysis and held it was punitive in nature, not on account of personal injury or illness, and therefore not excluded from gross income.

As to the second argument of the petitioners in O'Gilvie: that the reasons that led Congress to exclude lost wages from income would also have led Congress to exclude punitive damages; the Court stated, "Our problem with these arguments is one of degree.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

O'Gilvie vs. US: The Final Word on the Taxation of Punitive Damages?
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?