- 14 -
section 104(a)(2) because the ITO II program was "designed to
avoid prosecution of a legal suit or action based upon tort or
tort-type rights".6 Petitioners allege that, because employees
who filed claims within 7 days of signing the ITO II agreement
had to return any settlement payments, the settlement payment was
made to avoid tort type litigation. Alternatively, petitioners
contend that Ms. Allman caused injury to petitioners by coercing
petitioner to sign up for the ITO II program and to terminate
from IBM. Additionally, petitioners allege that, as a result of
having to sign up for the ITO II program and to terminate
employment with IBM through coercion and duress, petitioner had
to accept a minimum-wage position to start a new career, suffered
periods of unemployment, assumed debts totaling $25,000, and
experienced great personal and family stress. As a final
alternative, petitioners contend that they would have suffered
even greater injury by filing "a claim against IBM instead of
accepting the ITO II settlement".
Petitioners' allegations are merely conclusions and not
specific allegations of fact that, if true, would support a
finding that the ITO payment was for personal injury or sickness
as required by section 104(a)(2). For purposes of the instant
6 Additionally, we note that, in their petition, petitioners
contested the deficiency on the grounds that the ITO payment "was
made, under taxpayer duress, as consideration to the taxpayer for
release of employer for any claim the taxpayer may have against
employer for age discrimination and other potential tort claims."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011