- 27 -
Ms. Estes. Consequently, in the event that we were to hold, as
we do, that the $150,000 assistance payment is income that must
be reported for 1992, pursuant to the parties' stipulation,
petitioner would be required to include in his gross income for
that year only 70 percent of that payment.
Petitioner contends that the $150,000 assistance payment is
not income. In support of that contention, petitioner advances
the following alternative positions:
The purpose of the payment as stated by Dupont's
Benlate resolution manager was to mitigate losses, for
good will, and retain customers. As such it consti-
tuted a gift. A gift is defined in Black's law dictio-
nary as a transfer of property without consideration (a
right, benefit, forbearance, or detriment exchanged).
There was no consideration here, thus the payment was a
gift. Gifts are not taxable under IRC �102(a)(2). A
gift required donative intent but that intent does not
have to have an altruistic motive and can be motivated
by self interest.
A casual reading of the assistance receipt would
made it appear that there was no need to repay the
amount. However, a closer reading reveals that the
"full amount" (emphasis added) of the assistance pay-
ment will be subtracted from any settlement or judge-
ment. It does not say that if the settlement or judge-
ment is less than the amount of the assistance payment
the difference would not have to be repaid. A zero
verdict would require the return of the whole assis-
tance payment. This is consistent with the opinion of
Dupont's Benlate resolution manager stated he and other
Dupont officials believed that Dupont has the right to
be reimbursed for the amount of the assistance payment.
An alternate way to view the assistance payment
based on the receipt that it was a no interest loan
which would have to be repaid. Loans are not income
and are not taxable. (Loans do not require a prom-
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011