Marsha M. Bland - Page 17




                                               - 17 -                                                  
            taxpayer signed a general release of “all claims” and received a                           
            payment based on years of service and rate of pay.  IBM reported                           
            the payment as Form W-2 income, but the taxpayer argued that the                           
            sum should be excluded from income under section 104(a)(2).  See                           
            id.  He contended that he had a bona fide claim for intentional                            
            infliction of emotional distress caused by his travel schedule                             
            and pressures at work.  See id.  He emphasized that prior to                               
            executing the release he had both filed internal grievances                                
            regarding his complaints and been hospitalized for a nervous                               
            breakdown.  See id.  He then asserted that, in light of these                              
            previous grievances, IBM accepted his participation in the                                 
            severance program in lieu of litigating his claims.  See id.                               
                  We assumed in Brennan v. Commissioner, supra, that the                               
            taxpayer had established an underlying tort type cause of action                           
            but found the following facts to indicate that the lump-sum                                
            payment was more akin to severance pay than to personal injury                             
            compensation:  The terms of the release covered both contract and                          
            tort liability; the release form was a standard document used by                           
            IBM for all employees who participated in the program; and the                             
            amount of the payment was calculated on the number of years of                             
            service and the taxpayer’s salary.  Lastly, the Court noted that                           
            because the taxpayer had not come forward with any evidence of a                           










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