Treasury Regulation hearings next week on IRC section 104(a)(2)

In today's edition of Speaking of Settlements I am joined by Jack Meligan, the President of SPI and former President of the SSP, to discuss the up coming hearings with Treasury on February 23rd on the clarifications regarding IRC section 104(a)(2). Mark Wahlstrom

These hearings are one of the first real reviews of the foundational tax code upon which the structured settlement industry is based, that being the exclusion from taxation of injuries caused as a result of personal physical injury. These hearings were originally scheduled to discuss expansions of that definition and modifications of the language, primarily to make clear the tax status of cases such as sexual abuse, wrongful imprisonment, illness caused by a hostile work environment, etc.

However, now an attempt is being made to raise the issue of 468B single claimant cases as part of the hearing, prompting a scramble by the various associations and interested parties to respond to the questions raised by this request.

Jack Meligan discusses his perspective on the always contentious single claimant 468B trust issue as part of this podcast, as well as raising awareness of the hearings and the issues to be discussed. Regardless of where you are on the politics and implications of this, you will want to watch the outcome of these hearings as they have a substantial impact on our profession, the definitions of what is a taxable damage situation and whether there will ever be clarity on the topic of 468B trusts.

Comments

[Jack]

Dick Risk is a leading attorney in the country? That's hilarious. Better tell Jamail his spot as Trial Lawyer of the Century is in jeopardy.

[cash for structured settlement]

Can you please mention treasury regulations related to Strategic Planning ?

[Qbert]

Mark,

Why did you post this rambling diatribe by twitchy McMeligan? Was there a fact in any of his diatribe? I thought this was a forum for news, not insanity.

[The Settlement Channel]

It was posted for the reason that we like to get a variety of views and opinions on various topics. Until we posted this on the hearings there was little to no coverage over the Treasury issues, so if it succeeded in raising awareness of the importance, so be it. I'm not thrilled that 468B is once again being raised in an inappropriate forum, but I'm also not thrilled that NSSTA is sending letters to Treasury purporting to represent all brokers when I would hazard to guess that most brokers don't even know this hearing is taking place and what the topics are.

I'd like to do a serious review on the hearings next week, anyone who attends is welcome to come on the show and give us their thoughts and opinions on what occurred.

[Qbert]

I'd rather have NSSTA speak for the industry than the what, 12 or 13 brokers who make up the SSP? They most certainly don't speak for the industry or the majority of plaintiff brokers. And posting Meligan's nonsense doesn't make it legitimate or newsworthy. You've just given him another forum for him to rant and rave.