- 15 -
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
where an appeal in this case would lie, held in Taggi v. United
States, 35 F.3d at 96, that failure to show the amount of a payment
allocable to claims of tort or tort type damages for personal
injuries results in the entire amount being presumed not to be
excludable. See Pipitone v. United States, ___ F.3d ___ (7th Cir.,
June 14, 1999); see also Getty v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 160, 175-
176 (1988), affd. as to this issue and revd. on other issues 913
F.2d 1486 (9th Cir. 1990); Morabito v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1997-315. As in Taggi, the release in this case is all-
encompassing and includes different potential tort and nontort
claims. As stated, no part of the payment was allocated to any one
cause of action. And, petitioner has not proven which portion, if
any, of the $207,000 was received in settlement of tort or tort
type claims of personal injury. Thus, assuming petitioner
sustained a personal injury as a consequence of IBM's termination
of his employment, the record reflects no basis for an allocation,
and, we are not in a position to apportion the payment among the
various possible tort and nontort claims enumerated in the
settlement agreement. See, e.g., Adams v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1997-357; Morabito v. Commissioner, supra.
We have considered all of petitioners' other arguments and, to
the extent not discussed above, find them to be without merit.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011