Darrell D. and Jane E. Moran - Page 2

                                        - 2 -                                         

          of his employment relationship with Holnam, Inc., is excludable             
          under section 104(a)(2)2 as damages received on account of                  
          personal injury or sickness.3                                               
                                  FINDINGS OF FACT                                    
               Petitioners resided in Cheyenne, Wyoming, at the time their            
          petition was filed.  In 1975, petitioner, who had obtained a                
          college degree in engineering, began employment with Ideal Cement           
          Industries.  Holnam, Inc. (Holnam), became the successor to Ideal           
          Cement Industries.  In 1985, petitioner was selected to go to               
          Montana to manage a plant that had not performed well.  By 1990,            
          the plant’s performance had improved.  As of 1993, petitioner had           
          been promoted to regional sales manager for Montana, and his                
          office was located in Bozeman, Montana.  During 1993, Holnam                
          announced a reorganization of the sales portion of its                      
          organization, and petitioner's position was to be eliminated.               
          Although the Bozeman office was to remain open and a position               
          higher than petitioner’s was to continue, the higher level                  
          position in Bozeman was offered to a Holnam employee from                   


               1(...continued)                                                        
          joint return with Darrell D. Moran, who will be referred to as              
          petitioner in this opinion.                                                 
               2  Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to           
          the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the period under                    
          consideration, and all Rule references are to this Court’s Rules            
          of Practice and Procedure.                                                  
               3 Two other adjustments were set forth in the notice of                
          deficiency, both of which were computational and dependent on the           
          outcome of the question of excludability of the $37,840 amount.             



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011