§130 — Certain personal injury liability assignments

30 cases·5 followed·4 distinguished·1 criticized·20 cited17% support

(a)In general

Any amount received for agreeing to a qualified assignment shall not be included in gross income to the extent that such amount does not exceed the aggregate cost of any qualified funding assets.

(b)Treatment of qualified funding asset

In the case of any qualified funding asset—

(1)

the basis of such asset shall be reduced by the amount excluded from gross income under subsection (a) by reason of the purchase of such asset, and

(2)

any gain recognized on a disposition of such asset shall be treated as ordinary income.

(c)Qualified assignment

For purposes of this section, the term “qualified assignment” means any assignment of a liability to make periodic payments as damages (whether by suit or agreement), or as compensation under any workmen’s compensation act, on account of personal injury or sickness (in a case involving physical injury or physical sickness)—

(1)

if the assignee assumes such liability from a person who is a party to the suit or agreement, or the workmen’s compensation claim, and

(2)

if—

(A)

such periodic payments are fixed and determinable as to amount and time of payment,

(B)

such periodic payments cannot be accelerated, deferred, increased, or decreased by the recipient of such payments,

(C)

the assignee’s obligation on account of the personal injuries or sickness is no greater than the obligation of the person who assigned the liability, and

(D)

such periodic payments are excludable from the gross income of the recipient under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 104(a).

The determination for purposes of this chapter of when the recipient is treated as having received any payment with respect to which there has been a qualified assignment shall be made without regard to any provision of such assignment which grants the recipient rights as a creditor greater than those of a general creditor.

(d)Qualified funding asset

For purposes of this section, the term “qualified funding asset” means any annuity contract issued by a company licensed to do business as an insurance company under the laws of any State, or any obligation of the United States, if—

(1)

such annuity contract or obligation is used by the assignee to fund periodic payments under any qualified assignment,

(2)

the periods of the payments under the annuity contract or obligation are reasonably related to the periodic payments under the qualified assignment, and the amount of any such payment under the contract or obligation does not exceed the periodic payment to which it relates,

(3)

such annuity contract or obligation is designated by the taxpayer (in such manner as the Secretary shall by regulations prescribe) as being taken into account under this section with respect to such qualified assignment, and

(4)

such annuity contract or obligation is purchased by the taxpayer not more than 60 days before the date of the qualified assignment and not later than 60 days after the date of such assignment.

30 Citing Cases

Gary M. Schwarz & Marlee Schwarz, Petitioners T.C. Memo. 2025-122 · 2025

Section 270 was based on prior section 130 enacted in 1943.

Section 130(f)(8) provides that nb deduction shall be allowed unless the contribution is substantiated in accordance with the terms ofthat section.

J. Paul & Holly S. Gaughf, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 2012-198 · 2012

Section 130(f)(8) provides that nb deduction shall be allowed unless the contribution is substantiated in accordance with the terms ofthat section. Congress enacted the substantiatión requirements ofsection~170(f)(8) because many órganizations'were failing to inform donorsthat portions ofthe amounts donors paid to those organizations were not deduc

to month.” In some jurisdictions, a month-to-month tenancy is considered a continuous tenancy, and in some it is considered a - 16 - recurring tenancy. See 51C C.J.S., Landlord and Tenant, sec. 145 at 438 (1968); 49 Am.Jur.2d, Landlord and Tenant, sec. 130 (1995). In those jurisdictions that view the tenancy as recurring, the tenancy ends and recommences at the expiration of every month. See 51C C.J.S., Landlord and Tenant, sec. 145 at 438 (1968). It is not clear from the case law whether Nebra

Collins v. Commissioner 34 T.C. 592 · 1960
McDonald v. Commissioner 17 T.C. 210 · 1951
In Re: Orso 283 F.3d 686 · Cir.
Canfield v. Orso 214 F.3d 637 · Cir.
Lockhart v. Commissioner 43 T.C. 776 · 1965
Davis v. Commissioner 29 T.C. 878 · 1958
McDonald v. Commissioner 23 T.C. 1052 · 1955
Eccles v. Commissioner 19 T.C. 1049 · 1953
Desks, Inc. v. Commissioner 18 T.C. 674 · 1952
Childs v. Commissioner 103 T.C. 634 · 1994
McKay v. Commissioner 102 T.C. 465 · 1994
Dudderar v. Commissioner 44 T.C. 632 · 1965
Estate of Lande v. Commissioner 21 T.C. 977 · 1954
MacMurray v. Commissioner 21 T.C. 15 · 1953
Canfield v. Orso 283 F.3d 686 · Cir.
TransAmerica v. USA · Cir.
Anders Knudsen v. Internal Revenue Service · Cir.
Musmeci v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc. 332 F.3d 339 · Cir.
Stokes v. United States · Cir.
Nutritional Health Alliance v. Food & Drug Administration 318 F.3d 92 · Cir.
Nutritional Health Alliance v. Food And Drug Administration 318 F.3d 92 · Cir.
Transamerica Assurance Corporation v. Settlement Capital Corporation, United States of America, Gary Steele 489 F.3d 256 · Cir.

New cases, delivered.

Get notified when new Tax Court opinions drop.