- 35 -
show that it was the intention of du Pont when it made the
$150,000 assistance payment to Mr. Henry to compensate him on
account of personal injuries. To the contrary, the record
establishes that the intention of du Pont in making assistance
payments was to assist the claimants to pay bills and other
expenses that they had difficulty in paying due to the alleged
damage to their businesses caused by Benlate, to help reestablish
their businesses, to mitigate losses, and for goodwill.
Based on our examination of the entire record in this case,
we find that Mr. Henry has failed to show that the $150,000
assistance payment is not income for 1992. Pursuant to the
parties' stipulation that 70 percent of that payment is allocable
to Mr. Henry, we hold that Mr. Henry must include in his gross
income for that year 70 percent of the $150,000 assistance
payment, or $105,000.
Addition to Tax Under Section 6651(a)(1)--1992
Petitioner did not file a tax return for 1992.3 Respondent
determined in the notice that he is liable under section
6651(a)(1) for his failure to file a tax return for that year.
3Henry & Estes Associates, a partnership consisting of Mr.
Henry and Ms. Estes, filed a Form 1065 for 1992. The 1992 Form
1065 did not reflect the $150,000 assistance payment that du Pont
made to Mr. Henry in February 1992. Instead, that form reflected
a loss from the orchid activity of Henry & Estes Associates.
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011