- 7 -
As we see it, there are three types of injuries to which the
IBM payments to Mr. Carey might be sourced. First, IBM may have
been motivated to set up the retirement program as a method of
ridding itself of "over-age" employees. However, this source
does not permit exclusion pursuant to section 104(a) under the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, Pub. L. 90-202, 81
Stat. 602 (current version at 29 U.S.C. secs. 621-634 (1994)).
Commissioner v. Schleier, supra.
The second motive for payment might have been future claims
for personal injuries, but this source is also precluded from the
exclusion provided by section 104, Roosevelt v. Commissioner, 43
T.C. 77 (1964); Starrels v. Commissioner, 35 T.C. 646 (1961),
affd. 304 F.2d 574 (9th Cir. 1962), as well as the provision of
the release preserving Mr. Carey's right to pursue claims arising
subsequent to the date of the release, see supra p. 4. Nor does
the possibility of emotional distress arising out of pressure on
Mr. Carey to sign the release provide a basis for applying the
section 104(a) exclusion herein in the absence of any specific,
meaningful allegations by petitioners in this regard. Sodoma v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-275.
A third source for the IBM payment might have been Mr.
Carey's prior medical problems and the possible application of
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), Pub. L. 101-
336, sec. 2, 104 Stat. 328 (current version at 42 U.S.C. sec.
12101 (1994)); Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub. L. 102-166, sec.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011