- 7 -
(8th Cir. 1997). Like other exclusion provisions, section
104(a)(2) is narrowly construed. See Commissioner v. Schleier,
supra.
According to petitioner, the lump-sum payment fits within
the definition of damages under section 104(a)(2) and is
excludable from his income under that section. Petitioner
acknowledges that prior to receiving the lump-sum payment: (1)
He never made any claim against AT&T for damages of any type;
(2) he was unaware of any personal injuries or sickness that AT&T
might have caused; and (3) he was unaware of any tort or tort
type claim for damages that he might have had against AT&T.
Nevertheless, in support of his position, he argues that AT&T
must have considered that he had some claim against the company,
otherwise he would not have been required to sign the
release/waivers in return for the lump-sum payment.
According to respondent, petitioner has failed to establish
that the lump-sum payment can be excluded from petitioner’s
income under section 104(a)(2). Furthermore, respondent contends
that the lump-sum is properly characterized as severance pay that
must be included in petitioner’s 1995 income. We agree with
respondent on both points.
There is nothing in the record that suggests that petitioner
suffered any personal injury or sickness caused by his employment
with AT&T or the termination of that employment. Petitioner’s
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011