- 11 -
definition for this case, and, we believe, it describes a
portion, if not all, of both the special severance payment
offered to petitioner and the payment. Special severance
payments were determined under a schedule generally applicable to
laid off employees, based on years of service and base salary.
That is enough for us to find that at least a portion of each
special severance payment was severance pay. We assume that each
special severance payment was also made in consideration of the
various releases contained in each of the separation agreements.
We need not determine, however, what portion of the consideration
in each special severance payment--and, in particular, the
special severance payment offered to petitioner--was attributable
to such releases because petitioner does not argue (nor would we
find based on the evidence in this case) that any of the amount
of the special severance payment offered to petitioner
constituted section 104(a)(2) damages. Cf., e.g., Webb v.
Commissioner, supra (payment made to departing IBM employee who
signed a similar release was not sec. 104(a)(2) damages); Taggi
v. United States, 35 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 1994) (similar result with
respect to AT&T Communications, Inc., employee signing a “full
legal release”). Therefore, since we have found that Boehringer
simply extended the period during which petitioner could accept
its original offer of a special severance payment, sweetening it
a bit, the payment does not constitute section 104(a)(2) damages
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011