- 9 -
curiam T.C. Memo. 1960-21; Metzger v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 834,
847-848 (1987), affd. without published opinion 845 F.2d 1013 (3d
Cir. 1988).
To discern the intent of the payor, we consider the method
used by the payor to determine the amount paid, compare the
agreement to other agreements made by the company, consider the
facts that led to the agreement, and weigh other facts that may
reveal the payor’s intent. Greer v. United States, 207 F.3d 322,
329 (6th Cir. 2000); Pipitone v. United States, 180 F.3d 859,
864-865 (7th Cir. 1999). Dennis Hamby (Hamby), Xircom’s director
of human resources in 1994 and 1995, and Randall Holliday
(Holliday), Xircom’s corporate counsel in 1994 and 1995,
testified that Xircom did not pay petitioner the $59,163 on
account of a personal injury. The parties did not negotiate the
payments at issue on account of personal injuries or sickness
that petitioner may have suffered.
Xircom paid $59,163 to petitioner in 1994 pursuant to the
April 18, 1994, agreement between petitioner and Xircom. The
amounts chosen were the amounts of salary petitioner would have
earned at AT&T or Xircom. Xircom’s practice of offering payments
resembling severance pay to individuals from whom it had
withdrawn an employment offer suggests that Xircom made payments
to petitioner to replace wages. The fact that Xircom made
monthly payments and that Xircom issued petitioner a Form 1099-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011