- 8 -
intent of the payment.5 Any problems in respect of these factors
are resolved in this case by the stipulation of the parties that
there was no preexisting claim based on age or other unlawful
discrimination. See supra p. 4.
Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to
petitioners, see Kroh v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 383, 390 (1992),
it can be argued that the stipulations as to the absence of "pre-
existing claim[s]" leave open the possibility of claims of
discrimination based on the settlements themselves. Such a
possibility has been adverted to in Webb v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1996-50, and Galligan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-605,
although neither of these cases accepted such an argument as a
ground for decision. Whatever may be the merits of an assertion
of such a window of opportunity, we see no basis for giving it
any consideration herein. Petitioners do no more than infer such
an approach; they do not set forth any supporting allegations of
fact in support thereof beyond their general assertions to which
we now turn our attention.
Petitioners' basis for asserting that there are substantial
issues of fact that require denial of respondent's motion is that
they would offer the following evidence:
5 See Foster v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-26.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011