- 7 -
not made “on account of personal injuries” within the
meaning of IRC � 104 * * * [a](2) and was includable in
gross income for income tax purposes).
Fabry v. Commissioner, supra at 1263 n.6.
With all due respect, we did not find in Henry I that the
$1,623,203 payment that petitioner received from du Pont in 1994
was for loss of business reputation and loss of business reputa-
tion as an orchid grower. On the record presented to us, we
found in Henry I that “petitioner has failed to establish that
all or any portion of the $2,800,000 total settlement amount, or
the $1,623,203 settlement payment, was paid by reason of, or
because of, the loss of the plaintiffs’ business reputation or
the loss of their reputation as orchid growers.” Henry v.
Commissioner, 77 T.C.M. (CCH) 2209, 2222, 1999 T.C.M. (RIA) 1238,
1255. In making the foregoing finding, we carefully reviewed the
record in the instant case, which included portions of the record
in the lawsuit (lawsuit) that petitioner and his former spouse
Donna Henry, d.b.a. Fred Henry’s Paradise of Orchids (collec-
tively the plaintiffs), had filed against du Pont and others. In
the lawsuit, the plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, negligence by du
Pont and strict liability in tort of du Pont. See Henry v.
Commissioner, 77 T.C.M. (CCH) at 2213-2214, 1999 T.C.M. (RIA) at
1244-1245. The plaintiffs alleged in the lawsuit that the
damages to them were a direct and proximate result of the negli-
gence of du Pont and the defective condition of Benlate. The
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011