- 3 - turer of Benlate, in the Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Florida. In that suit, the Fabrys alleged that du Pont had allowed Benlate to become contaminated so as to cause the damages that they suffered from having used it on their stock of plants. The Fabrys demanded a judgment for monetary damages from du Pont under theories of negligence and strict liability in tort. Under both theories, the Fabrys claimed that they sustained damages in the form of the lost value of destroyed or injured plants, damage to their business reputation, lost income, and the lost value of their business. After mediation, the suit which the Fabrys instituted against du Pont was con- cluded pursuant to a stipulation under which du Pont agreed to pay them $3,800,000. See id. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Commissioner) conceded in Fabry I that $500,000 of the $3,800,000 that du Pont paid to the Fabrys constituted damages for injury to their business reputation. See id. Thus, there was no dispute between the parties in Fabry I, as there was in Henry I, that a specified amount of the total damages paid was paid as damages for injury to business reputation. The only question presented to us in Fabry I was whether, as argued by the Fabrys, the $500,000 that du Pont paid to them as such damages was received on account of personal injuries, as that term is used in section 104(a)(2). See id. at 308.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011