- 12 -
with different claims and does not allocate the proceeds to
specific claims, and there is no evidence that a specific claim
was meant to be singled out, the entire amount is considered
taxable. See Taggi v. United States, 35 F.3d 93, 96 (2d Cir.
1994); Reisman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-173, affd.
without published opinion 248 F.3d 1151 (6th Cir. 2001); Sherman
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-202; Morabito v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1997-315; Sodoma v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-275,
affd. without published opinion 139 F.3d 899 (5th Cir. 1998).
Where a settlement agreement lacks express language stating that
the payment was (or was not) made on account of personal injury,
the most important factor in determining the application of
section 104(a)(2) is the intent of the payor in making the
payment. See Agar v. Commissioner, 290 F.2d 283, 284 (2d Cir.
1961), affg. per curiam T.C. Memo. 1960-21; Metzger v.
Commissioner, 88 T.C. 834, 847-848 (1987), affd. without
published opinion 845 F.2d 1013 (3d Cir. 1988).
On the day of the hearing regarding the notices of
discipline, Mr. Broedel, Mr. Lesniak, and Mr. Patterson met with
Mr. Hasselbach and Mr. Panebianco, SUNY’s authorizing official
for the settlement agreement, to discuss the possibility of a
settlement. As a result of the meeting, Mr. Broedel agreed to
retire immediately in exchange for an amount equal to one and
one-half times his annual salary. The parties then met with Mr.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011