- 8 -
This conclusion is supported by the Release itself, which was not
tailored specifically for petitioners, but was used generally for
the ITO II Program. See Keel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-
278; Webb v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-50. It is also
supported by the amounts paid, which were based on years of
service rather than specific injury.
Petitioners also argue that IBM's actions caused personal
injuries to petitioners after they signed the Release. This
argument does not help petitioners, since the Release covered
only existing claims against IBM. Petitioner "agrees to release
[IBM] from all claims * * * you may have against IBM which are
related to your employment with IBM". (Emphasis added.) See id.
Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that a material issue
of fact remains for trial. They have not shown that the amounts
received under the ITO II program were paid in settlement of tort
claims, or that any portion was "received 'on account of personal
injuries or sickness.'" Commissioner v. Schleier, supra at 337
(quoting sec. 104(a)(2)).
Respondent's motions for
summary judgment will be
granted, and decisions will be
entered for respondent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: May 25, 2011