- 24 -
injuries of Mr. Burditt, he did not object because Halliburton
did not want any amount allocated to Mr. Burditt; rather,
Halliburton's attorney was concerned that a failure to allocate
any amount to CRI might fail to bind CRI to the settlement. Once
satisfied that CRI's agreement to dismiss its summary judgment
appeal would preclude any later reassertion of CRI's claims,
Halliburton's attorney agreed to an allocation of the entire
proceeds to Mr. Burditt because Halliburton was otherwise
indifferent as to how the settlement proceeds were allocated.
Halliburton's attorney testified that the personal injury
allocation was not an item of contention between the parties and
that he “didn’t care if they put it in there or not.”
Further, as in Robinson, the allocation did not reflect the
realities underlying the settlement with Halliburton and
petitioner’s insertion of it was entirely tax-motivated. Similar
to the Lindsey settlement agreement, the Halliburton settlement
agreement partially allocates the award to petitioner for damage
to his reputation, notwithstanding the fact that it was never
claimed that Halliburton’s actions had resulted in this type of
damage. In addition, the personal injury allocation in the
Halliburton agreement was based on the language used in the
Lindsey agreement, obtained from an accountant for the purpose of
securing tax-exempt treatment.
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011