- 12 -
liability for both contract and tort claims. The release,
however, does not specifically indicate that the lump-sum payment
received by petitioner was paid to settle a potential personal
injury claim against IBM pursuant to the ADA. We note that where
the settlement agreement lacks express language stating what the
settlement amount was paid to settle, then the most important
factor is the intent of the payor. Knuckles v. Commissioner, 349
F.2d 610, 612 (10th Cir. 1965), affg. T.C. Memo. 1964-33; Stocks
v. Commissioner, supra at 10. Here, respondent argues, and we
agree, that IBM did not make the payment on account of a personal
injury. The release form appears to be a standard document used
by IBM for all of its employees who participate in the ITO II
Program. Moreover, IBM calculated the amount of the $94,174
lump-sum payment received by petitioner using the same
mathematical formula for each participant in the ITO II Program
based on the participant's individual years of service. Finally,
the release states that if petitioner were rehired by IBM, he
could be required to repay some portion of the lump-sum payment
based on the number of weeks off the IBM payroll compared with
the number of weeks' salary used to calculate the lump-sum
payment. As in Sodoma v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-275, and
Webb v. Commissioner, supra, the lump-sum payment herein appears
to have been severance pay rather than a payment for personal
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011