Richard and Margaret Sherman - Page 13




                                       - 13 -                                         

          receive thereunder is for a personal injury claim petitioner has            
          against IBM.  The references to physical and mental injury in the           
          settlement agreement were inserted pursuant to petitioner's                 
          request.  Indeed, the cover letter from IBM's corporate counsel to          
          petitioner (with which was enclosed a draft of the settlement               
          agreement) states:                                                          
               The draft attempts to accommodate your request that we                 
               make it clear that you have asserted claims for personal               
               injuries and that the lump sum payments is in settlement               
               of those as well as all other claims.                                  
               According to petitioner, he collapsed and suffered injuries            
          (hand tremors, weight loss, and severe headaches) due to the stress         
          he experienced as a consequence of IBM's termination of his                 
          employment.  At trial, we observed that petitioner experienced              
          tremors in his hands.  Although at times, wrongful employment               
          termination possibly may result in personal injury, if the amount           
          of lost wages or other compensation received in such cases is not           
          linked to that personal injury, such an award will not qualify for          
          the exclusion from gross income provided in section 104(a)(2).  See         
          Commissioner v. Schleier, supra at 330.  Such is the case herein.           
               Where a settlement agreement lacks express language stating            
          what the settlement amount was paid to settle, then the most                
          important factor is the intent of the payor. See Knuckles v.                
          Commissioner, 349 F.2d 610, 612-613 (10th Cir. 1965), affg. T.C.            
          Memo. 1964-33.   The best indicator of IBM's intent is the language         






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011