- 6 -
discrimination claims, and "claims based on theories of contract
or tort." The Release also provided that the benefits received
for signing "constitute consideration for this release, in that
there are benefits to which you would not have been entitled had
you not signed this release." This language indicates that IBM
considered the payments to petitioners as compensation for
release of all potential claims, including, but not limited to,
tort claims. This is supported by IBM's inclusion of each award
in petitioners' W-2 forms. There is nothing in the Release to
show that it was tailored to a specific incident or named
individual. The Release is so broad it covers any potential
existing claim; it is not designed to compensate for a specific
tort violation except incidentally.
2. Damages received
Petitioners must also demonstrate that "the damages were
received 'on account of personal injuries or sickness.'"
Commissioner v. Schleier, supra at 337 (quoting sec. 104(a)(2)).
Where a settlement agreement contains a number of claims, does
not allocate the portion excludable under section 104(a)(2), and
there is no other evidence that a specific claim was meant to be
singled out, the court must consider the entire amount taxable.
Taggi v. United States, supra at 746; Sodoma v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1996-275. Cf. Stocks v. Commissioner, supra at 17.
In this case, there was no division of the award by the parties.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011