- 14 -
Henry v. Commissioner, 77 T.C.M. (CCH) at 2224, 1999 T.C.M. (RIA)
at 1258.
However, as discussed above, we did not find on the record
presented to us in Henry I that the $1,623,203 settlement payment
was paid for loss of petitioner’s business reputation or loss of
his reputation as an orchid grower. Instead, we found on that
record 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) at 2222, 1999 T.C.M. (RIA)
at 1255. In light of the above-quoted finding that we made in
Henry I, we do not believe that the Court of Appeals’ opinion in
Fabry II requires us to change our finding in Henry I that, on
the record before us in this case, petitioner failed to establish
that the $1,623,203 settlement payment that he received during
1994 was made on account of personal injuries within the meaning
of section 104(a)(2), as construed by the Supreme Court in
Commissioner v. Schleier, 515 U.S. 323 (1995), and cases decided
after Schleier.8
8In Fabry II, the Court of Appeals stated in a footnote:
23. While we agree that the terms of the settlement
agreement (and supporting documentation) is a factor to
be considered, see Stocks v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 1,
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011