- 6 -
contends that summary judgment is warranted on the following
grounds: (1) Petitioner did not have a claim against IBM at the
time that he signed the release by which he obtained the ITO
payment; (2) IBM did not make the payment on account of personal
injury or sickness; (3) no portion of the payment is allocated to
any personal injury or other claim; and (4) a payment made to a
taxpayer under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) is
not excludable from gross income under section 104(a)(2).
Included as an attachment to respondent's Motion for Summary
Judgment is a letter from petitioner to respondent's counsel
dated January 21, 1997, setting forth petitioners' position
regarding the basis for the exclusion of the ITO payment from
petitioners' gross income.
This matter was called for hearing at the Court's motions
session in Washington, D.C., on May 28, 1997. Counsel for
respondent appeared at the hearing and presented argument in
support of the pending motion. Although petitioners did not
appear at the hearing, they did file a written statement with the
Court pursuant to Rule 50(c).
Petitioners' Rule 50(c) statement includes allegations that
IBM is responsible for certain business failures that petitioner
suffered after terminating his employment at IBM. In addition,
petitioner asserts that the release that he signed at the time of
his resignation from IBM represented a settlement under which he
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011