William J. Goeden and Carol S. Goeden - Page 13

                                       - 13 -                                         

          to consider in applying section 104(a)(2).  Knuckles v.                     
          Commissioner, 349 F.2d 610, 612 (10th Cir. 1965), affg. T.C.                
          Memo. 1964-33; Stocks v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 1, 10 (1992).                
               As indicated in our findings of fact, the credit union's               
          board of directors had several motives for making the payments to           
          petitioner.  The documentary or testimonial evidence shows that             
          such motives were to avoid (1) a suit for libel, defamation, or             
          damage to petitioner's professional reputation; (2) a suit for              
          age discrimination or wrongful discharge; (3) expenses of                   
          litigation; and (4) claims for breach of an implied employment              
          contract.  In addition, the board wanted to provide petitioner              
          with retirement pay.  Because the intent of the credit union in             
          making payments to petitioner is derived from all of the above              
          motives, we think an allocation of the payments is appropriate              
          and necessary under these facts and circumstances.  Stocks v.               
          Commissioner, supra at 16-17.                                               
               In view of the testimony of Hugo W. Wandt, Jr., and Richard            
          H.E. Smith, who were members of the credit union's board of                 
          directors, and William French, an attorney who represented                  
          petitioner in negotiations with the board, we are persuaded that            
          the claim for defamation and damage to professional reputation              
          was the predominant reason motivating the credit union's payments           
          to petitioner.  Respondent did not attempt to rebut this                    
          testimony by calling witnesses, especially other members of the             





Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011