Geraldine M. and Arthur F. Reid - Page 9




                                        - 8 -                                         
          wrongful discharge, intimidation, coercion, and harassment under            
          Fla. Stat. Ann. sec. 440.205, which is a workmen’s compensation             
          statute.                                                                    
               Petitioner claims to have sustained an injury in 1995, but             
          the nature and extent of the injury are unclear.  Petitioner did            
          not submit to the Court any evidence of his injury such as                  
          medical bills.  At trial, petitioner was unable to provide the              
          date of his injury.  Petitioner testified that he was injured               
          while carrying a 5-pound bucket of ice while at work.  This                 
          conflicts with the previous statement by petitioner in a letter             
          addressed to respondent that he received the $5,000 settlement              
          because he was hit by a taxicab while bicycling.  Petitioner                
          explained at trial that the injury from the taxicab was separate            
          from the claim for which he received the $5,000 at hand.  We find           
          the inconsistency to be troubling.                                          
               Petitioner did not argue, and we do not conclude, that his             
          injury was an occupational injury as is required to exclude the             
          settlement received from gross income under section 104(a)(1).              
          Sec. 1.104-1(b), Income Tax Regs.  We conclude that the                     
          settlement payment is not excludable from gross income under                
          section 104(a)(1).                                                          
               We now consider whether the settlement payment is excludable           
          from gross income under section 104(a)(2).  As we have already              
          concluded, it appears that the lawsuit against Chevron was                  






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011