Joseph Henry Metelski - Page 8




                                                - 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