- 7 -
United States, supra at 1160 (quoting Warner v. Commissioner, 526
F.2d at 2).
In a similar vein, the fact that respondent may have treated
other taxpayers differently has generally been considered
irrelevant. Davis v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 1014, 1022 (1976).
Some selectivity in enforcement is not in itself a Federal
constitutional violation of due process or of equal protection
where the selection is not deliberately based on an unjustifiable
standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary
classification. Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Heintz, 760 F.2d
1408, 1418-1419 (4th Cir. 1985); Penn-Field Indus., Inc. v.
Commissioner, 74 T.C. 720, 722-723 (1980) (citing Oyler v. Boles,
368 U.S. 448 (1962)). No evidence of selectivity based on any
unjustifiable standard is reflected in the record herein.
We now turn to petitioners' claim that, in any event, the
lump-sum payment is excludable from gross income under section
104(a)(2) because Mrs. Keel suffered personal injury in signing
the release. As petitioners put it:
I [Mrs. Keel] filed an amendment tax return to my [her]
1992 Tax. "Code Sections 104(a) provides in relevant
part that 'gross income does not include ....(2) the
amount of any damages received (whether by suit or
agreement and whether as lump sums or periodic
payments) on account of personal injuries or
sickness'". Based on this information and the
agreement I [Mrs. Keel] signed with IBM, the settlement
should be nontaxable income.
My [Mrs. Keel's] amendment was based on the
"personal injuries" statement. When I [Mrs. Keel]
signed that ITO Waiver with IBM, I indeed suffered
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011