- 14 -
relevant to that inquiry, the character of the settlement payment
hinges ultimately on the dominant reason of the payor in making
the payment. Agar v. Commissioner, supra; Fono v. Commissioner,
79 T.C. 680, 696 (1982), affd. without published opinion 749 F.2d
37 (9th Cir. 1984).
In support of her position that she received the settlement
amount at issue on account of personal physical injuries, Ms.
Nield relies on: (1) Her testimony, (2) the settlement agree-
ment, (3) her deposition taken in connection with the complaint
filed in the United States District Court, and (4) Ms. Nield’s
affidavits that comprised her State claim with the Utah Indus-
trial Commission.
With respect to Ms. Nield’s self-serving testimony regarding
her contention that she received the settlement amount at issue
on account of personal physical injuries, we find that testimony
to be questionable in certain material respects. Moreover, Ms.
Nield called no witnesses, such as the attorney who represented
her with respect to her claims against Goer, in order to corrobo-
rate her testimony. Under the circumstances, we are not required
to, and we shall not, rely on Ms. Nield’s testimony regarding her
position that Goer paid her the $29,000 at issue on account of
her personal physical injuries. Lerch v. Commissioner, 877 F.2d
624, 631-632 (7th Cir. 1989), affg. T.C. Memo. 1987-295; Geiger
v. Commissioner, 440 F.2d 688, 689-690 (9th Cir. 1971), affg. per
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011