- 13 -
Commissioner, supra at 847-848 (quoting Knuckles v. Commissioner,
349 F.2d 610 (10th Cir. 1965), affg. T.C. Memo. 1964-33); see
also Fabry v. Commissioner, supra at 308.
Determining the intent of the payor is a factual inquiry,
and the terms of the agreement as well as the setting in which it
was reached and carried out are relevant in this endeavor. See
Stocks v. Commissioner, supra at 11; Metzger v. Commissioner,
supra at 848-850; Sherman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-202;
Brennan v. Commissioner, supra. Here, both indicate that PSC did
not pay $58,845 to petitioner on account of personal injuries and
in settlement of her purported tort claim.
As regards the agreement itself, the waiver and release
document signed by petitioner explicitly covers “any and all
claims”. It then sets forth a nonexclusive enumeration of claims
within its reach which includes both tort and nontort causes of
action. The terms of the release thus indicate that the intent
of PSC was to settle all possible claims, not exclusively to
compensate petitioner for emotional distress. The fact that the
document is a standard, general release with no specific mention
of petitioner’s individual harms is also supportive of such a
view.
Furthermore, as noted by respondent, the release expressly
waives only claims “arising out of the termination” of
employment, thereby providing some basis for an argument that PSC
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011