-14- claims without specific allocation to any particular claim, DaimlerChrysler demonstrated that its purpose for the payment was not as damages on account of physical injury or physical sickness. The ultimate character of the proceeds depends on the payor’s “dominant reason” for making the payment. Commissioner v. Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278, 286 (1960); accord Agar v. Commissioner, 290 F.2d 283, 284 (2d Cir. 1961), affg. per curiam T.C. Memo. 1960-21. Petitioner did not file her lawsuit against DaimlerChrysler until after the pinch. Instead of the pinch being the basis for a separate and stand-alone cause of action, however, the complaint treats the pinch as a symptom of the harassment. Similarly, the agreement also references the “personal injury” as resulting from the harassment. From the evidence, the Court concludes that it was not DaimlerChrysler’s intention to compensate petitioner for the physical injury, in other words, the pinch. Rather, their purpose and intention was to compensate for the primary cause of action stated by petitioner in her complaint, the harassment. The Court “must consider the entire amount taxable” when the agreement settles claims for different types of damages, does not allocate the damages, and “there is no other evidence that a specific claim was meant to be singled out.” Morabito v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-315. The Court finds that thePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011