Phillip Lee and Carolyn F. Allen - Page 7




                                        - 7 -                                         

          the credibility of witnesses and probative value of evidence,               
          respondent’s position may be “substantially justified”.  See                
          Creske v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-318, affd. 946 F.2d 43              
          (7th Cir. 1991).  In the case before us, the taxability of                  
          petitioners’ settlement was dependent on the weight of the                  
          evidence presented and our subsequent interpretation of the                 
          settlement agreement.                                                       
               Throughout the pretrial process and up to the March 24,                
          1998, trial, respondent possessed conflicting information about             
          the purpose of the settlement.  Even though Allstate Insurance              
          Co.’s (Allstate) counsel, Charles Siegal, advised respondent’s              
          counsel on March 10, 1998, that Allstate did not pay punitive               
          damages, respondent possessed evidence supporting the position              
          that the payment was made in settlement of multiple claims,                 
          including bad faith and/or punitive damages.  That evidence                 
          included the complaint against Allstate, the settlement                     
          documents, and two letters from petitioners’ prior                          
          representative.  All referenced recovery for personal injury                
          and/or punitive damages.                                                    
               Respondent also points out that the Allstate underwriter               
          involved in petitioners’ claim had advised that the settlement              
          was made for punitive or bad faith damages.  It was only 4 days             
          before trial when the underwriter called respondent’s counsel to            
          advise that she could not testify to her prior statement because            





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

Last modified: May 25, 2011