- 6 -
and salary, nor the circumstances under which it was offered to
petitioner, before he had made known to APC any claim of personal
injury, suggest that APC intended to make the payment on account
of any personal injury to petitioner. See Phillips v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-336. The release form appears to
be a standardized document, which is in itself indicative that
the payment was not on account of personal injuries. See Gajda
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-345, affd. 158 F.3d 802 (5th
Cir. 1998). Although petitioner was offered the opportunity to
suggest modifications to the release form, he did not do so.
Consequently, we discern no alteration in APC’s intent in making
the payment from the time it set out the payment criteria in the
release form until it made payment to petitioner according to
those criteria.
The release contains no mention of any particular claims by
petitioner against APC, but rather refers comprehensively to
petitioner’s release of “any and all * * * claims, known and
unknown,” including claims “arising under federal, state and
local laws,” specifying by way of example, inter alia, claims
under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, for which damages
received are not excludable under section 104(a)(2). See
Commissioner v. Schleier, supra.
Because the release allocates no part of the payment to
claims of tort or tort type damages, and in the absence of facts
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011