- 11 -
plaintiffs’ cost of the lawsuit, (2) the plaintiffs executed a
document entitled “RELEASE, INDEMNITY AND ASSIGNMENT” (release,
indemnity, and assignment), and (3) a notice of voluntary dis-
missal of the appeal of the lawsuit was filed on or about May 13,
1994.5 See id.
In Henry I, we found nothing in the record before us,
including the stipulation of settlement and the release, indem-
nity, and assignment,6 which established that all, or even a
portion, of the total settlement amount, or the total settlement
payment, was paid on account of the loss of the plaintiffs’
business reputation or the loss of their reputation as orchid
growers.7 Unlike Fabry v. Commissioner, 111 T.C. 305 (1998),
revd. 223 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2000), the Commissioner did not
concede in Henry v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-205, vacated
and remanded without published opinion 234 F.3d 34 (11th Cir.
5Of the $2,800,000 that du Pont agreed in the stipulation of
settlement to pay the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, du Pont paid
$450,000 to the attorneys, $31,139.14 to various third parties, a
total of $695,658.26 to Donna Estes, and a total of $1,623,203 to
petitioner. See Henry v. Commissioner, 77 T.C.M. (CCH) at 2216,
1999 T.C.M. (RIA) at 1247.
6The document in the record entitled “RELEASE, INDEMNITY AND
ASSIGNMENT” appears to be an incomplete copy of that document.
7Nor did we find anything in the record in Henry I which
established that Mr. Henry received the $150,000 assistance
payment from du Pont in 1992 by reason of, or because of, loss of
business reputation or loss of reputation as an orchid grower.
See Henry v. Commissioner, 77 T.C.M. (CCH) 2209, 2219-2220, 1999
T.C.M. (RIA) 1238, 1251-1252.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011