- 15 -
If this was found to be a payment to settle a
claim under the ADA, the Court is not convinced that
such payment would be, by law, excludable from income
under 104(a)(2). Neither counsel has provided to this
Court any decision dealing with an ADA settlement and
the Court has not been able to find one by itself.
* * * * * * *
[The Bankruptcy Court thereupon analyzed Commissioner v.
Schleier, 515 U.S. 323 (1995), and United States v. Burke, 504
U.S. 229 (1992).]
And so, under the facts of the instant case before
this Court, the compensation is not excludable as a
matter of law under 104(a)(2). For these reasons, the
Court denies the objection to claim filed and allows
the claim of the IRS for the 1994 tax debt. Mr.
Wilkinson, you will draw the orders.
(Whereupon, the case was concluded.)
The Bankruptcy Court memorialized this ruling by an order
entered August 25, 1998, which provides, in pertinent part, as
follows:
ORDERED that the debtor’s tax liabilities for the
years 1988, 1989, 1990, and 1991 are non-dischargeable
under 11 U.S.C. � 523(a)(1)(C);
ORDERED that the debtor’s objection to the
Internal Revenue Service’s claim for 1994 income tax is
overruled, and that the claim is ALLOWED;
Petitioner did not appeal the order, which has become final.
U.S. Department of Justice attorney James J. Wilkinson
(hereinafter sometimes referred to as Wilkinson) represented
respondent in petitioner’s bankruptcy case.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011