Joseph J. and Lillian A. Gajda - Page 7

                                        - 7 -                                         

          (5th Cir. 1995).  "[T]he critical question is, in lieu of what              
          was the settlement amount paid?"  Bagley v. Commissioner, supra             
          at 406.                                                                     
               Determination of the nature of the claim is factual.  Id.;             
          Stocks v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 1, 11 (1992).  The first                    
          requirement is the existence of a claim based upon tort or tort             
          type rights.  Commissioner v. Schleier, supra at 331.  The claim            
          must be bona fide, but not necessarily valid; i.e., sustainable.            
          Sodoma v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-275 (citing Taggi v.                
          United States, 35 F.3d 93, 96 (2d Cir. 1994)); Robinson v.                  
          Commissioner, supra at 126; Stocks v. Commissioner, supra at 10.            
          In this connection, we note that we have held that claims for               
          potential future personal injuries do not qualify for exclusion             
          under section 104(a).  Roosevelt v. Commissioner, 43 T.C. 77                
          (1964); Starrels v. Commissioner, 35 T.C. 646 (1961), affd. 304             
          F.2d 574 (9th Cir. 1962).  Such holdings imply that there must be           
          an existing claim.                                                          
               Petitioner asserts that IBM was engaging in systematic                 
          discrimination against employees over the age of 40, that he was            
          forced to leave the company because of his age, that as a result            
          he has been diagnosed as having a "major depression" for which he           
          is presently under psychiatric care, and that age discrimination            
          was the primary concern of IBM in requiring petitioner to sign              
          the release.  Therefore, petitioner contends that IBM accepted              





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

Last modified: May 25, 2011