Fred Henry - Page 57




                                        - 57 -                                         

          the $1,623,203 settlement payment in petitioner's 1994 tax return            
          was the result of Mr. Gargiulo's error.  On that record, we                  
          further find that petitioner's reliance on Mr. Gargiulo was not              
          reasonable and that he did not act in good faith in relying on               
          him.                                                                         
               We now address petitioner's contention that the state of the            
          law was such when he filed his 1994 tax return in October 1995               
          that his position to exclude the payments at issue as income from            
          that tax return was reasonable.  We disagree.  The Supreme Court             
          decided both United States v. Burke, 504 U.S. 229 (1992), and                
          Commissioner v. Schleier, 515 U.S. 323 (1995), before petitioner             
          filed his 1994 tax return.  In both of those cases, the Supreme              
          Court explained the requirements prescribed by section 104(a)(2)             
          that damages be received "on account of personal injuries or                 
          sickness."  We have found on the instant record that petitioner              
          has failed to establish (1) that the $1,623,203 settlement                   
          payment which he received from du Pont during 1994 was received              
          on account of the loss of his business reputation or the loss of             
          his reputation as an orchid grower and (2) that such losses                  
          constitute personal injuries within the meaning of section                   
          104(a)(2).  We have also found that du Pont issued Form 1099-MISC            
          for the $2,800,000 total settlement amount to Fred Henry's                   
          Paradise of Orchids and its attorneys in the lawsuit.                        







Page:  Previous  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011