Lance R. and Elaine C. LeFleur - Page 22

                                               - 22 -                                                 
            parties.  See Robinson v. Commissioner, supra at 129; cf. Fono v.                         
            Commissioner, supra at 696 ("We are not convinced that a weighing                         
            of the 'economic realities'--i.e., the merits of petitioners'                             
            claims * * *--is the standard to be applied where a taxpayer                              
            challenges the allocation in his own agreement.") (Emphasis                               
            added.)  To do so would effectively eviscerate the requirements                           
            of section 104(a)(2), and would allow taxpayers to exclude                                
            settlement proceeds from income at will in those instances where                          
            the payor is unconcerned with how the allocation is made.                                 
            B.  The Facts and Circumstances in the Instant Case Reveal                                
            That the Settlement Was Not on Account of Personal Injury Claims.                         
                  Having decided to look behind the express allocation made in                        
            the settlement agreement, we turn now to examine other factors,                           
            including the payor's intent and the details surrounding the                              
            litigation, to characterize the nature of the claim.  Robinson v.                         
            Commissioner, supra at 127; Threlkeld v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. at                         
                  Petitioners' attempt to characterize $800,000 of the $1                             
            million payment as having been made on account of personal                                
            injuries is belied by the record.  See Glynn v. Commissioner, 76                          
            T.C. at 120.  Other than petitioner's self-serving testimony and                          
            the conclusory testimony of his psychotherapist, which we do not                          
            find persuasive, there is no evidence before the Court that the                           
            defendants' actions caused petitioner to suffer emotional                                 
            distress.  Petitioner was fired discreetly and suffered no undue                          

Page:  Previous  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011