- 8 -
testimony on the point and the stipulation of the parties
indicate otherwise. Furthermore, the only evidence in the record
that remotely suggests that the lump-sum payment was made to
compensate petitioner for personal injuries or sickness is the
language used in the release/waivers that petitioner was required
to sign pursuant to the retirement program. Contrary to
petitioner’s presumption, however, the requirement that
petitioner waive any such rights against AT&T does not in and of
itself establish the existence of such rights. Nor does that
requirement establish that the lump-sum payment was made in
settlement of a claim that petitioner might have had against AT&T
for the violation of any such rights.
We are satisfied that the lump-sum payment does not qualify
for exclusion under section 104(a)(2). Our conclusion in this
regard is supported on several grounds. First, from all
indications in the record, the release/waivers that petitioner
was required to sign were used by AT&T in the case of any
manager/employee who was eligible and elected to terminate
employment under the retirement program. Secondly, the amount of
the lump-sum payment was not determined with respect to any
tortious conduct on AT&T’s part; instead the lump-sum payment was
determined with reference to petitioner’s years of employment
with AT&T and his age. Lastly, considering that the lump-sum
payment was made as part of the retirement program, it is more in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011