Richard D. Anderson and Mary L. Anderson - Page 10




                                       - 10 -                                         
          on the origin and character of the claims adjudicated, and not              
          upon the validity of those claims.  See Bent v. Commissioner,               
          87 T.C. 236 (1986), affd. 835 F.2d 67 (3d Cir. 1987); Glynn v.              
          Commissioner, 76 T.C. 116, 119 (1981), affd. without published              
          opinion 676 F.2d 682 (1st Cir. 1982); Seay v. Commissioner, 58              
          T.C. 32, 37 (1972).  In this case, most of the amounts                      
          petitioners received was for tortious interference with Mr.                 
          Anderson’s business relationships and only a nominal amount was             
          received for slander.  Both of Mr. Anderson’s claims of action              
          existed under Georgia law.                                                  
               In Georgia, tortious interference with business                        
          relationships requires the plaintiff to show that the                       
          defendant:  (1) Acted improperly and without privilege, (2)                 
          acted purposely and with malice with intent to injure, (3)                  
          induced a third party or parties not to enter into or continue              
          a business relationship with the plaintiff, and (4) caused the              
          plaintiff financial injury.  See Renden, Inc. v. Liberty Real               
          Estate, Ltd., 444 S.E.2d 814 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994).                           
               Respondent determined that the damages received by Mr.                 
          Anderson for interference with his business relationships were              
          awarded on account of economic injuries, rather than personal               
          injuries.  Supporting respondent’s determination, under Georgia             
          law a person’s business is property in the pursuit of which he              
          is entitled to protection.  See NAACP v. Overstreet, 142 S.E.2d             






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

Last modified: May 25, 2011