- 26 -
Okabena.12 The liquidation payment was not in lieu of litigation
of petitioner’s alleged defamation or age discrimination claim.
We conclude, therefore, that petitioner is not entitled to
exclude the liquidation payment from his income under section
104(a)(2) because the liquidation payment was not received “on
account of personal injuries or sickness.” Commissioner v.
Schleier, 515 U.S. at 330. The payment received by petitioner
comprised the proceeds from the sale of capital assets and must
be included in income as such in the year it was received.
III. Conclusion
We have carefully considered all remaining arguments made by
the parties for contrary holdings and, to the extent not
discussed, conclude they are irrelevant or without merit.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.
12Petitioner retained his interests in two of the Okabena
investment entities under certain supplemental agreements that
were modified as part of the settlement.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Last modified: May 25, 2011