Backpay Awards under Title VII Not Excludable from Gross Income

Backpay Awards under Title VII Not Excludable from Gross Income

Introduction

United States v. Burke et al. (504 U.S. 229, 1992) is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court addressing the tax implications of settlement payments received under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case centered on whether backpay awards resulting from employment discrimination could be excluded from gross income under Section 104(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) as "damages received . . . on account of personal injuries."

The plaintiffs, Therese A. Burke, Cynthia R. Center, and Linda G. Gibbs, were employees of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) who received backpay as part of a settlement for a sex discrimination claim. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) disallowed their claims for a refund of the withheld federal income taxes on these backpay awards, leading to a legal dispute that eventually reached the Supreme Court.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court held that backpay awards received under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are not excludable from gross income under Section 104(a)(2) of the IRC. The Court reasoned that the remedies provided under Title VII, which are limited to backpay and injunctive relief, do not constitute a "personal injury" as defined for tax exclusion purposes. Consequently, the backpay awards are taxable and must be included in the recipients' gross income.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court examined several precedents to inform its decision. Notably:

  • Sparrow v. Commissioner (292 U.S.App.D.C. 259, 949 F.2d 434, 1991) - This case similarly held that Title VII backpay awards are taxable.
  • Thompson v. Commissioner (866 F.2d 709, CA4 1989) - Affirmed that backpay under Title VII is taxable.
  • JOHNSTON v. HARRIS COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DIST. (869 F.2d 1565, CA5 1989) - Noted that Title VII backpay awards may not be excluded under Section 104(a)(2).

Additionally, the Court referenced IRS regulations and prior tax rulings, which historically treated backpay as taxable income unless it directly compensates for personal physical injuries or sickness.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's legal reasoning focused on interpreting the term "personal injuries" within Section 104(a)(2). It determined that for a settlement to be excludable, it must constitute a "personal injury" as traditionally understood in tort law, which encompasses both physical and non-physical injuries requiring compensatory or punitive damages.

However, Title VII's remedial scheme is distinct from traditional tort law. The remedies available under Title VII are limited to backpay and injunctive relief, without extending to compensatory or punitive damages for pain, suffering, or emotional distress. The Court emphasized that because Title VII does not provide for a broad range of damages typical of tort actions, the backpay awards do not meet the criteria for exclusion under Section 104(a)(2).

The majority also noted that even after the 1991 amendments to Title VII, which introduced compensatory and punitive damages in certain circumstances, these do not retroactively apply to cases decided before the amendment, including the Burke case.

Impact

This decision has significant implications for individuals receiving backpay awards under Title VII:

  • Tax Liability: Employees awarded backpay due to employment discrimination must include these awards in their taxable income, affecting their overall tax liability.
  • Tax Planning: Employers and employees need to consider tax implications when negotiating settlement agreements under Title VII.
  • Legal Clarity: The ruling clarifies the boundaries between compensatory damages in tort law and the specific remedies available under employment discrimination statutes.
  • Future Litigation: The decision sets a precedent that limits the scope for excluding certain types of settlement awards from income, potentially influencing how future settlements are structured and taxed.

Moreover, this case highlights the interplay between tax law and employment discrimination remedies, urging stakeholders to seek comprehensive legal and tax advice when navigating such settlements.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title VII is a federal law that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It allows employees to seek remedies such as backpay (the wages lost due to discrimination) and injunctive relief (court orders to stop discriminatory practices).

Section 104(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code

This section of the IRC specifies that certain types of income are excluded from gross income for tax purposes. Specifically, it excludes "damages received ... on account of personal injuries or sickness." To qualify for this exclusion, the damages must relate to personal injuries as traditionally defined in tort law.

Backpay

Backpay refers to the wages that an employee has lost due to unlawful employment practices, such as discrimination or wrongful termination. It aims to compensate the employee for the income they would have earned had the discrimination not occurred.

Gross Income

Gross income encompasses all income from any source not explicitly excluded by the IRS. It forms the basis for calculating an individual's taxable income.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Burke et al. establishes a clear precedent that backpay awards received under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act are taxable and must be included in an individual's gross income. This ruling underscores the distinction between the limited remedies available under anti-discrimination statutes and the broader compensatory damages typically associated with tort law. Consequently, employees and employers must account for the tax implications of such settlements, ensuring compliance with federal tax obligations. The judgment reinforces the principle that not all damages awarded in employment disputes are treated equally for tax purposes, highlighting the necessity for informed legal and financial planning in the wake of discrimination claims.

Case Details

Year: 1992
Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Judge(s)

Harry Andrew BlackmunAntonin ScaliaDavid Hackett SouterSandra Day O'ConnorClarence Thomas

Attorney(S)

Jeffrey P. Minear argued the cause for the United States. On the briefs were Solicitor General Starr, Assistant Attorney General Peterson, Deputy Solicitor General Wallace, Kent L. Jones, Ann Belanger Durney, and Bruce R. Ellisen. Joseph E. Finley argued the cause for respondents. With him on the briefs was Lucinda M. Finley. Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the American Association of Retired Persons by Steven S. Zaleznick, Cathy Ventrell-Monsees, Raymond C. Fay, and Thomas F. Joyce; for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. by C. Cabell Chinnis, Jr., Alison C. Wetherfield, Martha F. Davis, Steven R. Shapiro, Isabelle Katz Pinzler, Julius L. Chambers, and Charles Stephen Ralston; for the Equal Employment Advisory Council by Robert E. Williams and Douglas S. McDowell; for Equal Rights Advocates, Inc., by Stephen V. Bomse, Nancy L. Davis, and Maria Blanco; for Women Employed et al. by Michael B. Erp, Mary K. O'Melveny, and Stephen G. Seliger; for the National Employment of Lawyers Association by Robert B. Fitzpatrick; and for the National Women's Law Center by Walter J. Rockler. Raymond C. Fay, Alan M. Serwer, and Thomas F. Joyce filed a brief for the United Airlines Pilot Group as amicus curiae.

Comments