- 50 -
we further find that, assuming arguendo that the $1,623,203
settlement payment which petitioner received from du Pont during
1994 had been paid for loss of his business reputation and loss
of his reputation as an orchid grower, that payment was not made
on account of personal injuries within the meaning of section
104(a)(2).
Based on our examination of the entire record in this case,
we find that petitioner has failed to establish that the
$1,623,203 settlement payment that he received during 1994 was
made on account of personal injuries within the meaning of
section 104(a)(2). Accordingly, we sustain respondent's de-
termination to include that payment in petitioner's gross income
for that year.4
Addition to Tax Under Section 6651(a)(1)--1994
Respondent determined that petitioner did not timely file
his 1994 tax return. Petitioner concedes that the Service
received that tax return after October 16, 1995, the date on
which it was due, and that the envelope in which it was mailed to
the Service was postmarked on October 17, 1995. He contends,
however, that he mailed his 1994 tax return on October 16, 1995,
4In the event that we were to hold, as we have, that the
settlement payment is not to be excluded from petitioner's gross
income under sec. 104(a)(2), petitioner advances several al-
ternative theories regarding the characterization of that payment
for tax purposes. We have considered all of those alternative
theories, and on the record before us we reject them.
Page: Previous 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011