- 10 -
Even if petitioner husband sustained personal injury or
sickness, petitioners failed to show what portion, if any, of the
$24,060.44 payment was allocable to tort or tort type claims.
The Release contains broad language relieving IBM from liability
for many potential claims, some of which are not based in tort or
tort type rights, including contract claims, claims under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), Pub. L. 90-202,
81 Stat. 602, as amended 29 U.S.C. secs. 621-634 (1994), and
claims under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L.
88-352, 78 Stat. 241, 253, as amended 42 U.S.C. secs. 2000e-1 to
-17 (1994). See, e.g., Commissioner v. Schleier, supra at 336
(holding that settlements for claims made under the ADEA are not
based on tort or tort type rights for purposes of section
104(a)(2)); United States v. Burke, supra at 241 (holding awards
of back wages under title VII do not redress tort type personal
injury within the meaning of section 104(a)(2)). The Release
does not state that any portion of the amount petitioner husband
received was for any specific potential tort or tort type claim
against IBM.3 Thus, on this record, it would be impossible for
3
Where a 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, 612-613 (10th Cir. 1965), affg. T.C.
Memo. 1964-33. The Court is satisfied that it was not IBM's
intent for any portion of the subject payment to be paid as a
settlement of a tort or tort type claim on account of a personal
injury or sickness.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011