- 15 -
motion, we accept as true that petitioner suffered injury when
Ms. Allman coerced petitioner to sign up for the ITO II program
and to terminate from IBM, that petitioner experienced great
personal and family stress as a result of his having to sign up
for the ITO II program and to terminate employment with IBM
through coercion and duress, and that petitioners would have
suffered even greater injury by filing a suit against IBM instead
of accepting the ITO payment. Petitioners, however, have alleged
no specific facts showing that the injuries they cited were: (1)
The basis for a tort or tort type claim against IBM that
petitioner released when he signed the ITO II program release and
(2) the basis on account of which IBM made the ITO payment. Even
if the injuries cited by petitioners could form the basis for
some tort or tort type claim against IBM (and we do not so find
in this opinion), such a claim would not be a basis for
concluding that the ITO payment was made by IBM on account of
such injuries.
In sum, petitioners have alleged no specific facts showing
that petitioner had a tort or tort type claim7 against IBM that
he released in exchange for the ITO payment. Additionally,
7 As we discussed supra, to exclude a settlement payment
pursuant to sec. 104(a)(2), the taxpayer need not file a claim.
However, the taxpayer must have a claim that is bona fide but not
necessarily valid; i.e., sustainable. Robinson v. Commissioner,
102 T.C. 116, 126 (1994), affd. in part, revd. in part and
remanded 70 F.3d 34 (5th Cir. 1995); Stocks v. Commissioner, 98
T.C. 1, 10 (1992).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011